[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26846-27482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-60503]
MTC-00020179
From: Brian Summers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in response to the proposed settlement agreement
with Microsoft in the Anti-trust lawsuit. I want to express my
severe disappointment and outrage with the proposed settlement
agreement. This agreement does nothing at all to Microsoft. All it
forces them to do is to follow current law as it already is written.
It does nothing at all to remove all the power and influence
Microsoft has received by exercising its illegal monopoly over the
computer OS industry. How can you even start to believe that this
settlement is fair for anyone outside of Microsoft? You are
basically giving them a slap on the wrist, and saying, "Ok, we
caught you. Don't do this again now. You can go back to your
business, but play by the rules now." This action is akin to
catching a major drug dealing ring, arresting them, and then letting
them go, as long as they promise not to deal drugs again. And not
only did you let them go, you gave back all the drugs you
confiscated when you made the arrest as well as all their drug
money. Microsoft has a clear unfair advantage over any other company
in the operating system industry. Microsoft already received enough
of the fruits of illegally using its monopoly and has been able to
grow to what it is now because of this. Something needs to be done
in any settlement that DIRECTLY AFFECTS Microsoft's assets and
holdings, as well as its power and influence over the OS industry.
These aspects of Microsoft grew out of the direct result of them
illegally using its power. As such, anything that was gotten
illegally should be taken away, or at least an attempt needs to be
made to level the playing field in the industry. This settlement
falls very short of what needs to be done do so.
One of the major flaws in the settlement is that Open Source
projects like the Linux Operating System also should have access to
the communication and API protocols that Microsoft's OS's use. Linux
is currently the MAIN competition that Microsoft is facing in the OS
industry. No allowing Microsoft's main competition access to the
protocols simply because the system is Open Source makes no sense at
all. Linux is the competition and as such needs to have access to
the protocols as well.
Direct compensation needs to be made to the consumers of
Microsoft products. Prices on their OS licenses have not changed at
all. Because there is no competition, there was no reason for
Microsoft to give a reasonable price for their product, simply
because people had to use it.
The idea of letting Microsoft possibly make compensation by
purchasing computers and software for some of the country's poorest
school district does nothing but increase Microsoft's hold over the
computer industry. If any deal like this is made, Microsoft should
be forced to use the full amount of money in any such action to
purchase computer hardware only. The cost of the software to
Microsoft would be nothing, if Microsoft software was used. Because
Microsoft has the ability to make an infinite number of licenses of
their software, the actual cost of that software to them is nothing,
and as such does nothing to hurt Microsoft. All this type of deal
would do is create another generation of people to later purchase a
Microsoft product. Red Hat Linux had an alternate proposal that I
and many others feel would be much more effective. Red Hat proposed
that Microsoft purchase only hardware, and that Red Hat would
provide the software for the computers. Thus allowing many more
computers to be given to more schools and also teaching people that
there is more then one choice for a computer operating system. In
closing, this proposed settlement does NOTHING but allow Microsoft
to continue business as usual. We had a better settlement deal
BEFORE Microsoft was found GUILTY then we have with this settlement
after their guilt was PROVEN in court. This deal is completely one
sided and its side most certainly looks like Microsoft to me. What
do I as a member of the computer industry get out of this? What does
everyone else who simply had to pay outrageous prices for Microsoft
products get out of this? What does the computer industry get out of
this other then the fact that Microsoft will still be as powerful as
ever? How does this do anything to change the way things are? Well,
if you ask me the answer to all those questions above is nothing.
And that is what this settlement does, its does nothing.
Brian Summers
Unix Network and System Administrator
Software Developer/Programer
MTC-00020180
From: Michael Newton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am of the opinion that Microsoft is actually *Winning* this
case with the settlement proposed. It is the equivalent of a
slapping a murderer on the wrist. And yes, MS is very much a
murderer. A suitable punishment would be to force open all of their
API's, an API is the code base used to write the uppermost tier of
executable programs. The Win32 API, if open, would not only
embarrass the company (with their feeble attempts at programming),
but will allow any number of windows programs to run on alternative
operating systems. There is a project underway to create an API that
mimics the win32 API, called WINE, but life would be soo much easier
if the code-base was already open. Another part of this is the
networking/communications APIs. MS Outlook and MS Exchange Server
have a closed protocol. Opening this would pave the way for
alternative Office platforms, or actually using MS Office on top of
another OS (Beos, Linux, Solaris).
Have you ever really read the Microsoft licensing schemes? They
had this one scheme that flopped, not too long ago, that had 3
options:
1) You don't sign up for anything special. MS then jacks up the
costs of individual liscenses.
2) You pay a yearly fee, and recieve MS upgrades and liscences.
3) You pay a significantly reduced amount if you promise to use
ONLY MS products.
Everyone and their brother originally bought MS products because
they were cheap, and because they managed to worm into the OEM
distribution channels. They have become a defacto standard, even
though their OS is worth crap. Let us count the number of security
issues Windows XX has had in the past 6 months, and the amount of
bandwidth that the entire internet lost because of it. If the Gov't
doesn't hold MS's hand while doing business, to ensure that it is
done fairly, I will have significantly less confidence in every part
of this country. I swear... If you actually need something done
right, you can't write to anyone any longer because you will be
ignored. How many senators check their e-mail anymore? How much
thought will you (the reader) actually give this letter, as well as
the thousands of other letters you recieve just like this one? We
actually need computer literate people deciding on this case, and it
is apparent that we do not have that. In their stead, we have a pile
of lemmings that have been fed MS gestapo propoganda. Yeah,
ironically, I send this via Outlook Express, on the only windows
machine I own. I have had to patch this machine 20 times a month,
compared to the goose-egg off my two Linux machines.
Go figure.
Mike
MTC-00020181
From: RHS Linux User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a student at NOVA in Virginia. I feel the proposed
settlement in the anti-trust case United States vs. Microsoft is
severely lacking in coverage and effective enforcement. I suspect a
symptom of Microsoft's tyranical behavior, and the lack of
restraint, is the flare up of Open Source development. Perhaps this
public movement could be used to penalize Microsoft and benefit the
public at the same time? Reguardless, I've seen Microsoft's tactics
over the years, and the current settlement does almost nothing to
curb their behavior. Microsoft will have completely evaded the
minimal restraints and enforcement within five years and have lost
none of its power to elbow competition out in the short or long run.
John Jones
MTC-00020182
From: Myles F. Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Settlement is outrageously deficient. The Microsoft
anti-trust offense is on a scale that boggles the mind. It will only
worsen as Microsoft adds new technological sectors to its
domination. Any sanction that falls short of definitively preventing
this stranglehold from growing is a monumental miscarriage of
justice. Please make the remedy definitive by breaking up Microsoft
into non-colluding units.
Myles Barrett
Software Consultant
[[Page 26847]]
Data Exchange Associates, Inc.
N. Chelmsford, MA
MTC-00020183
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48am
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,
Geni Casaletto
5665 S. Chestnut #8
Fresno, CA 93725
MTC-00020184
From: Robert Riemersma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
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 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 Dan Kegel's
analysis, 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,
Robert Riemersma
79 W 18th St
Holland MI 49423
MTC-00020185
From: Fred von Stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
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,
Fred von Stein
New York
MTC-00020186
From: John McGready
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe the current
proposal provides adequate remedies for those injured by Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior. Over the decades hundreds, even
thousands, of small companies have been driven out of existence by
Microsoft's objectionable business practices. As was done with
AT&T, Microsoft should be severely regulated, if not subdivided
until its market share drops to an acceptable level, perhaps 33 to
40 percent (assuming one of its competitors is now also at 40%).
Until this is true of all Microsoft product lines, such regulations
shouldn't be realxed. Even after being found guilty of
[[Page 26848]]
monopolistic practices, Microsoft's behavior shows a complete lack
of respect for the law, a complete lack of remorse for their
actions, or even repentance for their crime. Strict regulation of
their behavior, coupled with the threat of incredibly severe
criminal penalties for noncompliance, is the only remedy that will
contain them- for it speaks the only language Microsoft either
knows or respects- the language of compulsion and enforced
compliance. The market must be able to return to its rightful
state- a balance born of countervailing competition. We don't
need another Enron. Imagine the damage to the nation should a
monopoly like Microsoft were to fail.... or even to have a bad
quarter.....
The risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the loss of
competition. Any benefit of monopoly is far outweighed by its
stifling of the great and diverse chorus of voices joined together
to form the rich tapestry that is the American Dream. I ask that you
not implement the proposal as it is now, but instead fight for the
small companies that best express the golden opportunities and
freedoms for which our armed forces are fighting even now..... save
the towers of this nation's economy from another remorseless
attack.....
Thank you for your time.
John McGready
3604 Drumore Dr. 1st Floor
Phila., PA 19154
MTC-00020187
From: Martin Wolters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am very concerned about the ongoing settlement discussion with
Microsoft. After following the involved issues since a couple of
years from different perspectives (user, interested individual,
software professional) I developed a strong opinion on the required
action. Microsoft's monopoly has gone too far. Freedom and
protection of users in America and around the world need to be taken
more seriously. Any proposed settlement must put an emphasize on new
alternatives to the current situation. It can be
+ a push for other operating systems (Mac, open source, etc.)
+ a clear cut between Windows OS and Windows applications (e.g.
browser, office suite, media player)
+ or steps that ensure open standards when connecting computer and/
or exchanging information (e.g. files).
It also should be emphasized that the user is in control of the
software on his computer. That he/she can decide, which programs to
install or not and that he/she can buy computers from companies that
were allowed to freely make those decisions for them. Simply paying
some money or donating some of the software under discussion does
not solve the problem. I hope the involved government organizations
will put an emphasize on the interest of millions of computer users
and organizations.
Best regards,
Matrin W.
MTC-00020188
From: Lars Hedbor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I favor dropping the case against Microsoft-they've done
far more good for the economy of our nation than any minor harm that
they may have done to their erstwhile competitors. Failing this,
however, I would favor the settlement of the suit as soon as
possible, with the terms currently proposed under the suit in
question.
Thank you for considering my opinion in the decision-making
process.
Lars D. H. Hedbor
14230 S. Beemer Way
Oregon City, OR 97045
(503) 722-3849 land
(503) 781-0227 cell
MTC-00020189
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft
The continued abuse of the privilege of operating in an open
market by Microsoft must lead to some remedial action that does more
than simply "sending a message" to them. The Netscape
fiasco is yet another blatant example of Microsoft's idea of how
free enterprise works and if Microsoft does not pay substantial
damages and does not allow competitors to compete without being
threatened, what sort of precedent does that set for the future
direction of US business practices? Indeed, the message would be
loud and clear that such practices are actually permitted by the
government if a corporation is large and powerful enough to be able
to convince bodies, such as the DOJ, that any harm to that company
might harm the US economy; a specious argument since it purports to
show how vulnerable the US economy is... which it is not!! ( 9/11
has proven just how robust this country is.) Moreover, if other
systems such as Apple, Linux etc can be allowed to prosper from
their innovations, that is all to the good of the US economy as
diversification has always been what has made America different...
read successful and strong. The feudal system epitomized in the
whole Microsoft ethos is appalling at first blush and outright
dangerous in full light. Please show courage and fairness in your
deliberations but above all show us that, in the end, the interests
of the US, not Microsoft, are what must be protected.
Sincerely
Robin Willcourt MD
701 Aspen Trail,
Reno NV 89509
775 787-6550
MTC-00020190
From: Rommel, Florian
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that MS is a big company and contributor to your
economy but i think this whole windows thing has gone too far...
noone will ever read this mail away , i just thought i'd let myself
known that MS , even though setting milestones in personal computing
history, is pushing this whole thing too far. it should have been
split and get this thing over with..
Q u a r t a l O y
Florian Rommel, Senior System Administrator
([email protected])
MTC-00020191
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54am
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,
Peggi Reagan
4302 Dayton St.
Omaha, NE 68107-1016
MTC-00020192
From: zhenbinx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to settle! The lawsuit was brought up by the
competitors of Microsoft. There is no harm to consumers. I, for one,
love what has been integrated into Windows platform-having to
install daily use software and configure it correct is simply too
painful. Integration is the right thing to do. The competitors want
Microsoft die. They don't really think about consumers otherwise
they would have been more competent on bring out high quality
products. All companies should focus more on innovations and
engineering excellences. The information industry needs to leave
this behind and have the case settled.
MTC-00020193
From: Robert Bain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a professional computer programmer, I've been monitoring the
Microsoft Case with a great deal of interest. Like many people
who've had MicroSoftWare inflicted upon me over the years, I'm
hoping the power of Goverment can do what the marketplace has so
spectacularly failed at: making Microsoft Play Nice with the other
children. But I don't think the currently suggested remedies are
going to do that.
I still think Judge Jackson had the right idea: Break MS into
two companies, one for applications, one for OSs. (I'd add one for
[[Page 26849]]
hardware, but that's just me.) If that truly is impossible, I think
an equally good idea would be to force MS to reveal ALL their
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to any porgrammer who
wants to see them. They have a long and proud tradition of using
hidden APIs to get better performance out of their own applications,
while letting outsiders gimp along with the poorer-performing,
better-documented "official" APIs, which sounds like a
fairly ringing abuse of monopoly power to me. Good luck coming up
with a solution. You'll be flogged if you get it wrong, and you'll
get flogged if you get it right. But I've heard it hurts less when
you get it right.
Good luck,
R. Bain.
MTC-00020194
From: Robert Womack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let Microsoft alone. Note that this came via bellsouth.net and
not msn.com. Which means the little icon in windows did not
influence me in selecting an ISP. Without Microsoft and Bill Gates,
most folks would still be using 5X8 cards.
Robert Womack, 59 Acorn Rd, Rome, Ga, 30161
MTC-00020195
From: Eric Nehrlich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to register my opposition to the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that Microsoft
has circumvented such restrictions in the past, and has shown no
indication that they will not do so again with the proposed
settlement. They have consistently shown no inhibitions about taking
any actions necessary to protect their monopoly. If their operating
system were being compared to others on a level playing field in
terms of stability and usability, Microsoft would lose every time,
so it is clear that they are taking advantage of their monopoly
position. I believe that the settlement needs to include a
recognition of the immense damage that Microsoft has caused to the
computer user community over the past ten years. By crushing
innovation that could conceivably harm its monopoly, it has held
back the progress of the computer software industry. Users have been
conditioned to expect that their software should be expected to fail
all the time, that their computer needs to be rebooted at least once
a day, and that software must be hard to use. The amount of time
that the typical computer user (which is almost everybody these
days) spends fighting with their computer to get it to do what they
want is probably half an hour a day. Add that up, and that could be
a 5% drop in productivity that is directly linked to the inferiority
of Microsoft's products, products which have only maintained their
market position due to Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly status.
Any settlement needs to recognize the massive negative impact that
Microsoft has had over the past ten years, and punish Microsoft for
their behavior.
Thanks,
Eric Nehrlich
758 Kingston Ave. #203
Oakland, CA 94611
MTC-00020196
From: Waldauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As allowed by the Tunney Act, I would like to voice my opinion
on the past proposed settlement and current anti-trust lawsuit in
the case against Microsoft. Previously Microsoft proposed a
settlement for the anti-trust trial. Their settlement included
roughly one billion dollars worth of software, computers, and
technical support to be delivered to schools across the country.
This proposed settlement seemed to me to be not much more than a
simple public relations trick and possibly even an attempt to EXTEND
their monopoly. The facts of the matter are that a 500 million
dollar donation of SOFTWARE to schools across the country would
actually cost Microsoft considerably LESS than 500 million dollars.
A donation of a $100 product such as a Windows operating system
license would only end up costing Microsoft whatever relatively
small cost of shipping and packaging. The rest of the $100 (probably
in the range of 90%) makes up the license, which costs Microsoft
nothing to donate. Another fact about this proposed settlement is
that if it had been passed, Apple Computers would have most
certainly suffered a huge blow by losing a large portion of its
current market share. Apple Computers make up, by recent estimates,
between 40% and 50% of all computers in American schools. Had the
proposed Microsoft settlement been passed, many of those computers
would have been replaced with Microsoft Windows machines thereby, in
all likelihood, permanently displacing Apple Macintosh operating
system machines from schools. I think there is an inherent problem
with an anti-trust settlement when a monopoly's sole (albeit very
small) competitor would be seriously injured. Lastly, I believe that
if one billion dollars were to be donated to American schools, I
feel that donations in the form of computers, software, and
technical support would not be the most useful form. I remember my
high school, we had a very full and up-to-date computer lab;
unfortunately, we lacked enough teachers and staff to keep the
computer lab open after school when the most use can be made of a
computer lab. I also remember my high school severely lacking desks
and chairs and an ever increasing class size. If one billion dollars
is to be donated to American schools, I believe the problems I have
laid out should be addressed first.
Although I found the previous settlement proposal to be nothing
more than a PR joke with nearly nothing to produce any results in
reducing Microsoft's monopoly or compensating the public for abuse
of that monopoly, I do believe that there is a solution to the
problem. Microsoft's monopoly resides in three software applications
that control three separate markets. First is the Windows operating
system itself. The main reason this monopoly lingers and is so
difficult to eliminate is because nearly every program on Earth runs
on windows, but relatively very few will run on any other operating
system. So in order to run your favorite programs, you need to buy a
copy of Windows. The best solution to this problem would be to allow
someone to run a program written and designed for Windows, but
without purchasing a copy of Windows. Every operating system uses a
set of API's (application program interface) that allows a
programmer to draw windows and objects onto the screen. The API
allows for just enough "hooks" for a developer to use,
but the API itself is hidden, only a description of what it does is
publicly known. Because of this, it becomes virtually impossible to
duplicate the Windows API. Step one to eliminating a Microsoft
monopoly is to force Microsoft to publish the complete source code
to the Window's API thereby allowing other producers to produce
operating systems that can run Windows programs and thereby directly
compete with Windows.
The second Microsoft application that unfairly monopolizes a
market is the Office Suite program, Microsoft Word. Although this
program is deemed by many to be the best of its kind, it is not the
quality of the program that has given Microsoft an unfair edge in
the market, it is instead the format that the program by default
saves documents in. The Microsoft Word document format is
proprietary, and in order to open a file written in Microsoft Word,
a person needs to have Microsoft Word (there are programs that
attempt to open Word documents, but these are not complete and
usually can only open the most basic Word documents). In order to
alleviate this problem, the specifications of the Word document
should be released to the public so that a document created by
Microsoft Word can be opened and edited or manipulated without the
need to purchase a copy of Microsoft Word. Lastly, the third program
that has monopolized an entire market is Microsoft's Internet
Explorer. Through monopolistic practices, Internet Explorer pushed
Netscape's Navigator out of the market. Microsoft also released web
authoring tools which produce webpages that can only be correctly
viewed with Internet Explorer. When the graphical internet started
to become popular, standards were formed on how webpages should be
formatted using the HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) code. With a
monopoly on web browsers, Microsoft violated these standards in
their authoring programs to solidify their monopoly. Although today
many alternative web browsers do exist, none of them
"work" as well as Microsoft's simply because so many web
pages are made to only be viewed in Internet Explorer. As a solution
to this, the rendering engine (the part of the web browser that
"renders" the HTML code to put the correct layout and
text of the webpage on the screen) of Internet Explorer should be
made public so that competing web browsers may incorporate into
their web browsers code to allow their users to view "Internet
Explorer only" webpages.
[[Page 26850]]
In all three of the mentioned markets Microsoft has maintained a
monopoly by forcing proprietary standards and formats and NOT by
producing quality products at low prices. In all three of my
solutions Microsoft would lose that unfair edge allowing other
companies to step in with competing products like never before.
Before a competing product had most of its focus on merely being
compatible, take away that edge and time and money can be spent on
making quality products at low prices (or free products as the case
may very well be, I.E. Linux, OpenOffice, etc.). In my proposal
Microsoft would be punished for its abuse, but more importantly, it
would take away the edge that Microsoft enjoys in order to maintain
their monopoly. My proposal would allow for competition to fairly
enter the market and hopefully would result in a better and less
expensive computing experience for everyone.
Alex Waldauer
MTC-020197
From: Fred von Stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
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.
Fred Stein
MTC-00020198
From: John Chu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Given the course and time that legal proceedings have taken for
the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case, it would seem that Microsoft is
winning this war, even if it is losing the battle. States have
settled with Microsoft because they can ill-afford the monetary
losses that they've indulged into this case. Microsoft lawyers
cleverly petition to extend the case, and the Court keeps setting
new dealines for hearings. Then there are the settlement offers that
Microsoft offers, mere pittances that secretly hold a different
agenda, underneath a veil of altruism. Microsoft is both demeaning
and insulting the court's ignorance of the Software Industry.
Evidence has already been shown that Microsoft has reaped,
plundered, and murdered many an honest companies" viable
products, and yet it continues to strong-arm many of its competitors
today. It would seem that Microsoft's war of attrition is winning
out over the Justice Dept. and States. It will win, whether or not
it loses this case.
John Chu
Saddleback College Student
MTC-00020199
From: Scott Yates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just want to make it known that i believe the proposed anti-
trust settlement is a bad idea. Do we simply let any company that
gets in trouble now simply BUY their way out?
Scott Yates
MTC-00020200
From: Jonathan S Talbot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed microsoft
settlement as it currently stands. Let there be no doubt about
Microsoft's widespread influence, as evidenced by their popular
windows OS. My primary complaint lies with the fact that the
problems associated with Microsoft's monopoly are not being
adequately addressed in this settlement. For example, in the
interest of protecting "intellectual property,"
Microsoft is not required to reveal protocol or interface
information, thereby hampering competing software companies from
developing products compatible with Microsoft's windows OS. This is
akin to a hypothetical automobile manufacturer who develops a
monopoly via an outrageous volume of vehicle sales, and is allowed
to produce inferior parts that require frequent replacement (to that
company's benefit), while simultaneously inhibiting production of
better quality replacement parts by competing manufactures, because
the part specifications of the monopolistic company are protected in
the name of "intellectual property." Unless Microsoft is
required to release such information, without the controlling nature
and costs associated with licenses, their monopoly is not limited
and is in fact enabled. In the interest of permitting competitors to
produce better "parts" for the omnipresent windows OS,
which would better serve the general public AND Microsoft, as well
as helping to preserve the viability of such competitors, this
settlement must be modified accordingly. Such a change would control
costs for consumers and more appropriately restrict the monopolistic
influence of Microsoft. Personally, I appreciate the ability to
choose new auto parts, at discounted prices, and from a variety of
manufacturers, and I would like the same privilege with my computer.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jonathan S. Talbot
Longview, TX
MTC-00020201
From: Geoff Kuenning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft antitrust case.
The proposed settlement has so many problems that it is nearly
impossible to address them in a brief note such as this one.
However, I will address two issues:
1. The PFJ does nothing to prohibit anticompetitive license
terms currently used by Microsoft.
2. The PFJ does not prohibit Microsoft's historical practice of
intentionally modifying its operating systems to introduce
incompatibilities with competing non-operating-system software
products, with the sole goal of making those other products unable
to compete with Microsoft's own non-operating-system products.
Geoffrey H. Kuenning
Assistant Professor, Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
MTC-00020202
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear reader...
I write this letter to present my opinion regarding the
Microsoft anti-trust case. I strongly object this deal, I think it
was rushed, all because the justice department was busy dealing with
the september 11th attacks against the US. The deal struck between
the DOJ and Microsoft doesn't in any way:
1. punish Microsoft of its previous illegal acts.
2. restrict future monopolistic behaviour. Therefore I would
love to see a review of the case settlement.
Thanks for your time
Hashem Masoud
Citizen of the state of Bahrain
MTC-00020203
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26851]]
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,
D Bryan
23 La Crosse Ct
Henderson, NV 89052-6608
MTC-00020204
From: Wade Farlowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wade Farlowe
4301 Wooded Way #18
Louisville, KY 40219
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I strongly support your efforts to end the Microsoft antitrust
litigation, now of three years in length, and implement the
settlement reached by the parties. I think this lawsuit should never
have seen daylight. I am not alone in this. The lawsuit is
unproductive and disruptive. By putting the suit behind us, the
American computer industry will be freed to innovate at the world-
leading pace it had held for many years. In order to end that
litigation uncertainty and wasteful expense, Microsoft has agreed
to, give up some of its rights, and make it easier for other
companies to work with its Windows operating system. Microsoft has
agreed to make its easier to remove the useful programs it includes
in Windows, such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and
Windows Messenger. So, if AOL Time Warner wanted to contract with a
computer builder, such as Dell, to put Netscape Navigator and AOL
Messenger on the desktop and remove Microsoft's offering they could
do that. Microsoft has also agreed to have a technical monitoring
committee come into its business to check for compliance with the
agreement and check out any complaints by third parties. All of
these terms show a Microsoft that wants to cooperate for the good of
the American computer industry and to move on to better innovations,
rather than wasteful unproductive time in legal wrangling. I feel
you are taking the right road in supporting the settlement of this
case. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Wade Farlowe
MTC-00020205
From: Michael Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
"Surgeons must be very careful
When they take the knife! Underneath their fine incisions Stirs
the culprit,-Life!" Emily Dickinson wrote that. Or, more
bluntly, Robert X. Cringley wrote in a recent article for PBS.org
[1]: "If this deal goes through as it is written,
Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger
than before." In this sense, it is not Microsoft who will die
over a matter of a slip of the knife, so to speak, but everyone who
chooses to offer serious alternatives to anything Microsoft develops
and releases. Easily implementable MPEG (a type of audio and video
format) decoding standards for DVD video and audio could be trampled
to death if Microsoft is easily and freely able to push its more
proprietary formats on the DVD industry [2]. For example, owners of
non-Windows laptops with DVD players could be seriously affected in
the long term. (What if I can't play some DVD I want because there's
some obscure incompatibility in my DVD player? This is just one
important question that can be posed.) What may be the worst issue
of all is demonstrated by visiting the following URL: What you're
looking at is a list of just -some- of the major, KNOWN
security issues with Microsoft's software. You'll notice I pulled
this link from Microsoft.com itself. The dominance of Windows in the
United States is becoming a national security threat [3], and will
inevitably become worse as they're left more loopholes in court
rulings and established case law. Their seedier actions are rooted
in the loose and often downright retarded language in legal
precedents, and if they aren't provided with precedents that are
solid and thought-out, they will, as Mr Cringley wrote, continue
obfuscating the intent of courts in which they argue and rulings to
which they're told to adhere. I would have little problem continuing
on and on, but I am aware of the almost uncountable amount of
communication you must be receiving on this subject, and understand
that an extremely long-winded, rambling rant would not be in the
best interests of anyone but those about whom I seek to write.
Best regards,
Michael Watson
MTC-00020206
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03am
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,
John Haley
1203 West 103rd Street #144
Kansas City, MO 64114
MTC-00020207
From: David Gessel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse,
I oppose the Microsoft Settlement. It is far too weak and does
not protect innovation from the stifling effect of Microsoft's
monopoly, nor does it protect consumers from Microsoft's pricing.
Instead I suggest that all vendors of computer equipment which is to
be supplied with Microsoft software be required to offer the same
equipment without Microsoft's software and that they be required to
offer the same software to anyone at the price difference between
the hardware supplied with Microsoft's software and without. This
will prevent Microsoft from exploiting their market position to
force vendors to keep better and cheaper solutions away from their
customers.
Sincerely,
David Gessel
Black Rose Technology
5233 Foothill Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94601
510 290-3849 (cel)
510 536-0105 (fax)
MTC-00020208
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
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,
Doug Millard
P.O.Box 870351
Wasilla, AK 99687-0351
MTC-00020209
From: Aaron Parker-Fasel
[[Page 26852]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:06am
Subject: Thoughts on the MSettlement
Would it be unreasonable to ask MS to sell technology BACK to
the original seller (this, of course, is in reference to the many
bought-out companies out there) for $1 or something to that effect?
This would CREATE business and more jobs, not to mention
competition, would it not? Another thought: Would it be unreasonable
to devise a settlement clause that specifically tries to decrease OS
market share? For example, they could pay for advertisements of
Apple products.
Aaron
MTC-00020210
From: insert random name here
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has imposed terrible software on >90% of the
market. The truth is, Microsoft products are terrible, and mand
illegal actions were made to obtain and keep that marketshare. I'd
go into the specifics of why Windows and Office have hurt my
buisness, but thats obvious, a plight heard in any office. My
platforms of choice, Macintosh and lately Linux, have suffered
directly with admittance of intentions from Microsoft. There are new
examples every month of Microsoft's impedance of superior technology
through illegal business practices. I reccomend division into three
parts, Operating System, Applications, and Internet software. I also
reccomend the "open sourcing" of propriatary protocols
and formats used to force users into uniformity.
Thank You for your time.
MTC-00020211
From: Stephen Kuenzli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I believe the proposed remedy is neither a commensurate
punishment for Microsoft's misdeeds nor even a deterrent to future
anti-competitive behaviour. As a software and systems engineer
(programmer) at a Fortune 100 company, I bear the burden of
Microsoft's sins every day because much of my job is to make things
work together. Microsoft has proven time and again that they will
use their market penetration to push others out of a competitive
market by any means necessary. These means are well documented:
secret APIs, embrace-and-extend tactics that allow only Microsoft's
clients to talk to Microsoft servers, and closest to my work, the
banishment (via click-through licenses on some Microsoft products)
of Open Source programs and tools from *my* development environment.
I urge you to consider making Open Source Software (http://
www.opensource.org) and Free Software (http://www.fsf.org) part of
any remedy as these movements empower the users of software. If we,
the users of software, are sufficiently empowered, then Microsoft
nor any other entity will not be able to run roughshod over us.
Sincerely,
Stephen Kuenzli
Chandler, AZ
MTC-00020212
From: richard pauli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11am
Subject: A computer operating system is a form of government
To the Courts,
Concerning the Microsoft Settlement:
I write to offer a single important insight into the Microsoft
Settlement that should help your construct a decision.. In the world
of digital computers, the computer operating system should be
thought of as a form of government. The operating system sets rules
and controls the flow of digital data much like a government set
rules for a civilized populous. Your charge is to define the limits
and structure of that digital government as it must intersect fairly
and equitably with our civil government. I urge you to halt the
further spread of such a tyrannical digital government-the
Microsoft Windows operating system.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard Pauli
614 W. Halladay St
Seattle, WA 98119
MTC-00020213
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
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,
cheryl hannah
2601 Perkins Circle
Glendale, CA 91206
MTC-00020214
From: Glenn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
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 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.
Glenn Strauss
Network Architect and Founder
Glue Logic
MTC-00020215
From: Jason Reich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
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 actions.
Additionally, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. Microsoft has been found guilty, but
is not being punished by this settlement. 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 Reich
San Diego, CA
MTC-00020216
From: Jeremy Leader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out the flaws in the
proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft.
1. In the absence of effective means of enforcement, the
proposed Final Judgement is meaningless. Microsoft has already been
[[Page 26853]]
found to have violated the terms of other agreements; why should
they respect this one?
2. If the proposed Final Judgement is modified to include some
effective means of enforcements, there would still be numerous
loopholes (such as those enumerated in Dan Kegel's Open Letter to
the Department of Justice, http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html).
Several of these loopholes are large enough to allow Microsoft to
completely avoid compliance with the intention of the proposed Final
Judgement. In short, the proposed Final Judgement is not in the
public interest.
Jeremy Leader
Arcadia, California
MTC-00020217
From: John G.Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: AOL-Netscape
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is John G. Jones, I have been a reseller and consultant
for almost 20 years. I was an avid Netscape promoter for several
years (1994-1998). We were an ISP (Internet Service Provider)
and distributed Netscape Navigator Exclusively for connections to
our service (including their dialer software). We paid Netscape
something like $12,000 for this privilege, (for about 2000 users)
while most ISP's were providing this for free. Netscape did not
update their software with user fixes as often as Microsoft, nor did
they continue their dialer software which caused us to re-engineer
our Dial-in Modems. We initially had to spend weeks with Netscape
engineers to get their software to work with Windows, they finally
went with Shiva (a third party, which had mastered this technology)
to perform their Dial-up software operations. Microsoft has the BEST
products for Internet connectivity and Browsing, and our customers
want them. Netscape and AOL products are freely available to ANYONE
without much of a hassle (it is as simple as typing www.netscape.com
in any browser). It is important that an Operating system has a
basic browser and an Internet Connectivity client so a person can
get on the Internet and download the software they choose to use.
Much of the premise behind the lawsuit is the fact that
Microsoft has taken advantage of their ability to incorporate the
Internet Explorer Browser into the Operating System (OS). The fact
remains that they did not and have not ever inhibited AOL or
Netscape from installing their applications on the Microsoft OS. The
fact that AOL and/or Netscape feels as if they deserve recognition
or recourse from the industry for their inability to capture the
public is a farce. Netscape, for years, made their browser available
for free and indiscriminately charged fees to gain recognition and
market share for the sole purpose of selling their higher end
products. In addition, resellers or OEM's have the ability to add
ANY software product they choose to the original installation. It is
my understanding that AOL has filed a new Private lawsuit against
Microsoft. I wish to make some comparison material for your thought.
AOL has the predominant Instant messenger(IM) software available on
the market. It is free! They won't allow other companies to
integrate their IM product with theirs. What is the difference
between Internet Explorer and Netscape Browsers? Netscape offers an
Instant messaging product that is actually AOL's? I am a computer
reseller and every computer I have delivered to a customer has had
the option of AOL for an Internet provider, as well as, an option
for Netscape Navigator to be installed.
I believe that AOL & Netscape have inferior products and are
trying to use the legal system and media to win support from the
general public rather than have a good product that is easy for the
end user to use, and provide cooperation for other companies. Let's
spend these dollars we are using for procecuting Microsoft on
legitimate government purposes.
Thanks,
John G. Jones
Office (805) 688-8550
Cell (805) 689-5815
Fax (805-688-0535
MTC-00020218
From: Kurt Semler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do belive that Microsoft businuss practices have not been that
considerate of the need for compition, however what bussinuss does
act fairly in compitition? Nobody does. any gain is a positive one
in the bussinus world. Without the efforts of microsoft, we would
still be using IBM XT's running only 32Kb of RAM. Microsoft is
responsible for the technology revolution. Thier practices may not
be fair, but thiier products are top of the line.
MTC-00020219
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern-
I wanted to express my opinion in hopes that there might be an
appreciation for the value that Microsoft has brought to the market
and this country, in particular. I have been designing computer
software and hardware since 1981, having received a BSEE at that
time. My experience is one of a user and a developer. I would like
to begin by referring to several benefits, I personally have
received through Microsoft crashing of other companies proprietary
offerings.
1. Under Bell Labs" thumb, we were required to pay $70,000
for the Unix operating system. This was just for the OS. From my
perspective, Microsoft, by turning the esoteric into the mundane,
has repeatedly produced generation after generation of low cost
standardized operating systems. Bells Labs didn't do this certainly,
but sought to protect their super high margin software. IBM didn't
do this, nor did Digital (DEC). Operating system software performs a
magnitude more than it did two decades ago, yet, at $200 to $300,
costs 1/350th of what it did. Conversely, automobile manufacturers
during that same time, raised prices from approximately $3000 to
$30,000, a ten-fold increase.
2. Under Adobe's thumb fonts and typefaces cost in the
neighborhood of $100 to $200 per font. After Microsoft repeatedly
was unable to get Adobe to open the PostScript Type 1 Font encoding,
so others could have reasonably priced fonts, Microsoft created a
competing standard called TrueType fonts and made this available to
the world. Because of this single act, a thousand fonts can be
bought today for $29, rather than $100,000. Adobe had the
opportunity to act and they didn't. They used their power to extract
the maximum amount they could from the customer. Microsoft did
exactly the opposite-they exposed the fraud, created a counter
standard, and gave it to the world. My first set of 25 Microsoft
fonts cost me less than $15 total, at a time when Adobe was still
selling the equivalent PostScript fonts for over $2500.
3. A lot more credit has been given to the one-trick pony
designers of Netscape. Keep in mind that Netscape was formed, based
on a single product- a Internet browser. This browser had been
developed as a college project, as a variant on an existing freeware
Mozzilla browser. Microsoft was presumed to have had its heyday and
to be in decline by investors, who gave Netscape a valuation of over
$13 billion dollars-more than Microsoft, at the time. This
occurred in spite of the fact that Netscape had never had a positive
cash-flow in its existence as a company and had only generated a
gross revenue-if memory serves me correctly-of $134,000.
Clearly, investors did not have a clue what the technology was.
Really, it was only a different way of looking at the same data,
comparable to using pie charts instead of text to demonstrate data.
Microsoft understood that and integrated the browser into the
operating system, as they had done previously with TCP LAN
communications, modem support, text editors, memory managers,
management tools, and so forth. Virtually every company, like
Netscape, like Quarterdeck, like Procomm, like Banyan, each had
products that began as one-trick ponies that eventually were
incorporated into the Windows operating system. Instead of paying
$100 for the browser, $240 for the modem software, $99 for the
memory manager, or $695 for the LAN network software, Microsoft gave
you all those things for FREE. In the process, they produced
standards to which all companies could write software. In each case,
they improved and mass produced was originally was a niche product,
then they gave it to you for FREE. Like the breaking of Adobe's
hammerlock on fonts, Microsoft also broke Oracle's gouging
capability, by producing a competitive relational database product,
MSSQL, at less than 100th of the cost of Oracle. If anything,
Microsoft, by its competitive nature, has benefited the market and
the user-and, yes, this has been at the expense of the one-
trick wonders. I could go on-Microsoft's ridiculously low
pricing of products, their single-handed rescue of the American
economy with super-productive computing tools and open standards,
and so forth. Almost fifteen years ago, I heard Bill Gates first
explain about Microsoft's vision of how diverse applications should
be able to share data. We take this as such a trivial thing
[[Page 26854]]
today, but this was such a major undertaking when it was first
announced-because it had never been done. Today we routinely
swap data between word processors, spreadsheets, Web pages, Photo
editing packages, etc. without a thought about the complexities
involved. It is all so trivial to accomplish, in many ways. But
Microsoft created that, AND gave it away. Technology, by technology,
they have had a singular vision of where computing should be going
and brought us there, every time making it cheaper for us, the
users.
When I started in graphics design, over 20 years ago, we
routinely sold systems to produce books and newpaper display ads for
$50,000 to $75,000 per workstation. Today that same workstation with
1000 times the processing speed and software with a magnitude more
capability costs less than $2,000- complete. This could never
have happened with Microsoft's unique standard-setting software. We
all have benefited by Microsoft's continued innovations and cost-
cutting products. The US economy has been in a dizzying spin, since
the day that the Microsoft trials began. (Yes, I believe there is a
correlation) The volatility will continue until we begin to allow
Microsoft to develop the next computing generation's products,
without continual legal harassment, for what is arguably a whirlwind
of innovation and competitive business strategies. It is critical
for the benefit of the United States economy. It is with enlightened
self-interest that the US government should come to Microsoft's
defense, because they have for the past 2 years been dangerously
wounding the goose that lays the golden eggs.
George Horrocks
MTC-00020220
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:10am
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,
Robert Cardwell
235 Crescent N.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
MTC-00020221
From: Lawrence Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Security, Market Penetration and The Lawsuit
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has
been converted to attachment.]
MTC-00020221-0001
Hi,
I want to move my network entirely to Linux or FreeBSD. However,
I'm discovering problems in doing so. The biggest one of which is
that I must maintain compatibility with Microsoft Office users, and
I'm therefore forced into the same regime of upgrading Office to
support features that no human being will ever use in order to
maintain the ability to read their proprietary *.doc and *.xls
files.
Or to be able to watch streamed media on the Internet, which is
more and more in *.asf format, "advanced streaming
format". ASF is a proprietary format, a slightly modified
industry-standard AVI file, and will only play on Windows Media
Player. Of course, in order to be able to use Office XP and
therefore read files from clients, I need to run Windows. But that's
easily enough done, I had to pay for Windows (which I promptly
deleted) when I bought a new machine on which to run a Linux
webserver. In fact, in the past year, I've paid for Windows four
times because the various PC manufacturers won't (can't) remove it
from bundles, and yet I still need the machines. (I use Windows on
exactly *one* machine.)
Needless to say, I'm trapped. I am writing this e-mail on a
Windows machine.
Bandwidth, in the computer field, is a commodity like
electricity or gasoline. I pay for it as I use it. Every time
someone visits my Linux webservers, the communication between the
visiting machine and my servers consumes bandwidth, and I pay for
it. Every time someone e-mails me, their mail server contacts my
mail server, and we consume my bandwidth.
Microsoft software is notoriously poorly written, and full of
security flaws which allow (literally) children to write things like
the Code Red worm. Code Red, you may recall, attacked Microsoft IIS
webservers. Now, by the way Windows installs "features"
by default, there are literally thousands of people on the Internet
right now, running IIS webserver software without even knowing it.
Many who run IIS deliberately don't even know that there are known
vulnerabilities and self-propagating programs which exploit these
Microsoft flaws.
As a result, my webserver gets lots of visits (below) from
people whose infected Windows machines are blindly attempting to
infect my Linux servers. And, in the process, that costs me
bandwidth. Which costs me money.
You can imagine how much it costs me whenever some jackass
writes a Windows e-mail virus, a phenomenon which is nearly
impossible in any responsibly-designed operating system.
Companies which produce operating systems *should not* be
allowed to sell software or other services. And file formats (*.doc,
*.xls, etc.) should be based on standards devised by consortium
using the same RFC ("Request For Comments") processes
that brought us HTML and FTP and DNS.
What kind of gas mileage would you expect from your car, if the
car companies were owned by the oil companies? If Ford was owned by
Exxon, could an Explorer run on fuel from Shell?
I'm a staunch Libertarian, but this is too much: Break up
Microsoft.
Lawrence Wade
MTC-00020222
From: Silas.Humphreys.01@ bristol.ac.uk@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although I am not a US citizen, I feel very strongly that
Microsoft should not be allowed to continue in their current
position, and am writing this e-mail to make that clear. Although
Microsft's products are very widely used (I am using a computer with
Windows running on it to type this), the current situation, with
Microsoft supplying both OS and applications, is unethical even if
not illegal. This market position allows Microsoft to decide,
without any consultation, to alter standards, causing other
companies/developers to re-write most of their output, causing
inconvenience and lack of competition. Also, Microsoft's near-
monopoly on computer Operating Systems leads to a falsely inflated
consumer confidence in Microsoft, distorting the free market. I
realise that this message may have no effect or legal force, but I
wished to make my views known. Thankyou for reading.
Silas Humphreys
MTC-00020223
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:12am
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,
Peter Davis
10814 W. Catfish Dr.
Wills Point, , TX 75169-5057
MTC-00020224
From: Ryan Krueger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is not satisfactory and
does not take appropriate action against Misrosoft. Microsoft must
be prevented from the same abuse in the future
[[Page 26855]]
in an aggressive and far-reaching manner. A fine will accomplish
nothing.
Ryan Krueger
555 4th Avenue SW
Hutchinson, MN 55350
612-554-4502
Senior Software Engineer
Marix Technologies
MTC-00020225
From: pdestefa@mouse@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Renata Hesse,
I am responding to the call for comments on the revised proposed
Final Judgment. I respectfully submit that the proposed settlement
is inadequate. Please allow me to elaborate on one of the many flaws
of this proposal.
One of the core inadequacies of the proposed settlement is the
weakness of provisions J.1 and J.2, which provide Microsoft with
opportunities to withhold information concerning interoperability
from parties with legitimate rights obtain it. This is a serious
oversight considering the Findings of Fact, which demonstrate that
Microsoft has used interoperability of products as a weapon against
it's competitors. This weakness is also particularly egregious
because this type of information-referred to as
"interoperability data" sometimes-is a major part
of what has made personal computing and the Internet such important
influences. When this "interoperability data" is
published (and overseen by diverse committees or independent
organizations) it is called a standard. Standards are essential to
the state of computing technology. The Internet could not exist
without them. They are a foundation for further competition in
computing technology. More importantly, they make possible rapid
innovation in surrounding technologies. In view of this error, I
strongly urge you to revise the proposed judgment. A settlement that
is congruous to the Findings of Fact must not allow the defendant to
exert this type of pressure on the computer industry, again. This
flaw, and many others, are explained in greater detail at this
Universal Resource Locator: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ -
Thank you,
Paul DeStefano
Portland, Oregon
MTC-00020226
From: Arlie Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
I am of the opinion that Microsoft has done nothing but taken
advantage of the opportunity that this country offers to everyone
who wishes to use their ingenuity to better themselves. Microsoft
has done nothing but make its products more attractive and cheaper.
They have done a much better job of that than the automobile
manufacturers. If you applied the pricing structure to the auto
industry that Microsoft has applied to the computer industry,
automobiles would be selling for $2500 a piece. It is time to stop
the witch hunt against Microsoft.
Arlie Edwards
MTC-00020227
From: Douglas Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
I am writing this in regards to the Tunny Act public comment
period and the proposed antitrust settlement case in which Microsoft
was found guilty of abusing it's power as a monopoly.
As a consumer and a American I am profoundly upset with the
current proposed settlement which has made it's way to the public.
Microsoft was found guilty of abusing it's power as a monopoly and
it must be punished accordingly in order to fix the harm which was
done to the PC industry and tech sector as a whole. The proposed
settlement will only lead to further abuse by Microsoft and in the
long run and it will help Microsoft further establish a even greater
strangle hold in the OS market. At the same time Microsoft will more
then likely continue to do all it can to stifle competition because
it feels that it has the power and means to do so despite the guilty
verdict which was handed down by the courts. If government were to
seek a solution like making Microsoft to the likes of forcing
Microsoft to open it's file formats or if they were to only allow
them ( Microsoft ) to use open file formats in their applications I
feel this would greatly help fix the damage done by Microsoft to the
technology industry along with a few other well thought out
measures. All of which when combined together will hopefully open
Microsoft up so they would have to really compete on the merits of
their products instead of the weight they push around in this
industry. Which of course it has used maliciously to intimidate,
lie, cheat, and steal all in order so they can maintain their
bloated monopoly. Monopolies like Microsoft only hurt our economy by
denying consumers the right to choose and by victimizing/
blackmailing OEM and Hardware Vendors and the many Software
companies waiting in the wings who wish to offer a alternatives to
Microsoft products. All of whom are afraid to so because they fear
being bullied by Microsoft because of the power which it wields in
the PC world. Let us not forget that whatever Microsoft can't steal
( example : Sun's JAVA, ) it will try to destroy ( Netscape, Lotus,
Corel Word Perfect, Corel Linux, and many more software applications
and companies ) by using it's control of the OS market to push a
Microsoft only solution. I hope that our government would please
rethink the propose settlement so that the consumers and our
government will not be held hostage by Microsoft and it's dominance
in the OS market which it unjustly gained control of through the use
of illegal and abusive means as a monopoly.
Sincerely,
Douglas G. Martinez ( A Consumer, A Capitalist and Proud
American.)
MTC-00020228
From: zapa1a
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18am
Subject: Why MS Needs To Be Punished
I am a computer programmer and used to be a PC support
technician. I support harsh penalties against Microsoft (MS) because
of direct experience I've had using their and competitors software.
During my work at the Franchise Tax Board/State of California I
installed Novell networking client software on Windows NT 4.0
workstations. When you wanted to install TCP/IP and IPX/SPX
networking software on the work station, the Microsoft operating
system required you to install their version first before you could
install Novell's. It seems to me that something was left off the
operating system that sabotaged competing software if it was
installed directly. Recently, another technician friend installed
MS-Office on his new Macintosh. The next thing you know, his
Netscape browser was giving error messages and his Works software
went dead. This friend is a longtime Mac user and support person and
something adversely happened when MS-Office was installed. The fact
of the matter is that this type of sabotage of competing software is
not surprising when it involves MS software. My friend has now
banned MS from his machine. While working at the Franchise Tax
Board, I observed management rigging software evaluations in favor
of MS. I since have come to learn that this type of favoritism of
certain vendors is common among state agencies and certainly does
not apply only to MS. I have read how MS is now
"lobbying" properly in Washington DC and it looks like
they will get the justice they have paid for. Having been raised by
a law enforcement officer, it is a shame to see law enforcement
personnel having to walk away from a crime. It seems that justice is
being denied by the people who are supposed to enforce it. Good luck
to you in your fight against crime. It appears that white collar
crime is at an all time high so hopefully that means an opportunity
to you and your agency.
Here's Hoping.
Ron Deluce
MTC-00020229
From: Eddie EDF. Ferrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft settlement.
the company has a blatant disregard for fair business practices and
must be stopped before it is too late. they have demonstrated time
and time again that they practice anti-competitive strategy to keep
the other companies in their field at a disadvantage. would you let
one company have control over 90% of the gasoline in America and
then manufacture cars as well? ......then they could also tell
consumers that if you don't buy our cars and our gas, you car
probably wont work as well because we have engineered the fuel to
get 100 miles to the gallon in our cars, but 15 miles to the
[[Page 26856]]
gallon in other companies" vehicles? .........or better yet,
maybe the fuel wont work in their product at all. what do you think
would happen? that is exactly what Microsoft is doing to the
computer industry. please restore some order and good faith to the
technology sector.
thank you, Eddie "F" Ferrell
Untouchables Entertainment Group, Inc.
Tel: 201 767 6924 ext. 1
Fax: 201 784 3879
MTC-00020230
From: Nikhil Kothari
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nikhil Kothari
591 239th Ave SE
Sammamish, WA 98074
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,
Nikhil
MTC-00020231
From: ROD DICKISON
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROD DICKISON
10833 3RD. S.W.
SEATTLE, WA 98146
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,
ROD DICKISON
MTC-00020232
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18am
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,
DONAL O. METTLER, Sr.
5941 EAST TEXAS STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307-2353
MTC-00020233
From: Frank Rytell
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Rytell
6867 Golfcrest Dr Apt 60
San Diego, CA 92119
January 24, 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,
Frank Rytell
MTC-00020234
From: Steven Lobbezoo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
I cannot imagine that you really have something to say in this
mather. Each and every decent person would allways stop this
machiavellian behavour if he/she had the power and was really
working for common interest.
Since i must presume you obviously are doing the last, there
must be something wrong with the first. Now, that will not wonder
anybody if you take into account what kind of fascistic country the
USA is fast becoming.
Glad, i don't live there.
Yours truly,
Steven Lobbezoo
MTC-00020235
From: Moe Khosravy
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Moe Khosravy
NA
Saint Paul, MN 55101
January 24, 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
[[Page 26857]]
the business of innovating and creating better products for
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies. Thank you for
this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Moe Khosravy
MTC-00020236
From: Andy Allred
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andy Allred
415 newport way
Seattle, wa 98072
January 24, 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,
Andy Allred
MTC-00020237
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:19am
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,
Robin Harper
1257 Highland Drive
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-8004
MTC-00020238
From: Marlene Carrico
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marlene Carrico
42 Rill Brook Road
Griswold, CT 06351-3313
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Marlene L. Carrico
MTC-00020239
From: MJ King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Anti Trust Settlement. It
is far too lenient on Microsoft. Bill Gates and Microsoft have
stolen money from nearly every household in America. Bill Gates has
practiced predatory business practices while failing to support the
user, while failing to produce a secure operating system, while
failing to insure the end user can maintain the back up integrity of
their data from upgrade to upgrade.
Bill Gates on one hand has used the lack of regulation and
enforcement to his advantage, while on the other hand selling an
inherently flawed product and then hiding behind licensing laws that
deny the user any protection from buggy, leaky, and generally badly
written application and operating software. I believe Microsoft
should be broken 4 companies. (1) Consumer operating systems, (2)
Internet applications, (3) Application software such as business
suites, (4) Network operating systems.
Sincerely
MJ King
Big Bear City, CA 92314
MTC-00020240
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20am
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,
Harlan Muth
223 8th Ave
Marion, IA 52302
MTC-00020241
From: Dustin Heywood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The microsoft settlement is a joke, unless their software is
made open source and the beast pays for its crimes there is no
justice here. Bill gates and his entire board shoudl be shot and
replaced with trained monkeys who could do a better job at following
the law than they ever could. WPA should also be forced offline by a
court order.
MTC-00020242
From: Greg Buhtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Final Judgement is seriously flawed and should not
be accepted as written.
[[Page 26858]]
As long as any judgement permits Microsoft to maintain its
monopoly in the PC Operating System (OS) market, Microsoft must be
enjoined to treat all OEMs alike, IAPs (Internet Access Providers)
alike, and ISVs alike so it does not artificially upset competition
in non-PC OS markets in which it does not offer a competing product.
The Judgement treats Microsoft partners and competitors unfairly
by singling out "the 20 largest".
In markets in which it does offer a competing product, it must
expose to competitors all OS APIs which it takes advantage of in its
own products. This requires a definition of what comprises an OS
API. I suggest that any program that is bundled with a Microsoft OS
as part of a single salable unit or which is required to make the OS
functionally complete for its intended purpose, which exposes an
interface which can be programmatically accessed (e.g. COM
typelibrary, scripting interface, or command-line interface), is an
OS API.
The Judgement permits Microsoft to define what is, and is not,
part of the OS. Since it is possible to incompletely document APIs,
if a Microsoft product ships (becomes available for use by non-
Microsoft employees) which uses an undocumented feature of an API,
the source code for that specific API must be made publicly
available on the Web to: 1. make up for the deficiency in
documentation, and 2. remove any inequity between ISVs receiving the
information before others. To determine if a Microsoft product uses
an undocumented API, the U.S. Government must retain the right to
reverse engineer Microsoft properties, and be required to do so
whenever a competitor requests.
The Judgement permits Microsoft to continue to take advantage of
its monopoly power in the most fundamental ways. There needs to be a
concrete definition of when Microsoft ceases to have a monopoly in
the PC OS market so that these special requirements can be
abandoned. This will encourage Microsoft to permit competition. A
minimum requirement is that there appear in the market competing
platforms that support a minimum set of functions which do not rely
on Microsoft products or services. The functions which are required
by the consumer market today are, at a minimum: email, web-browsing
(including animation, audio, and video data types), written document
authoring, file transfer, spreadsheet functions, action video games,
and non-technical maintenance. Linux is getting close, but lacks
consumer market momentum. The Judgement lacks a termination clause
that is strongly linked to the definition of Microsoft's monopoly
power. I'd like to comment on the harm Microsoft has brought to
consumers by its anti-competitive actions. We lack security because
Microsoft has ignored basic mechanisms introduced in competing
technologies (e.g. Java's sandbox security model and provably secure
programming languages). We lack choice from highly componentized OS
architectures. We lack integration because of proprietary file
formats, APIs, and communication protocols. Since the PC has become
a required utility for the American industry and citizenry, and
Microsoft has established itself as the gatekeeper for the quality
of access to this utility, Microsoft must be constrained to manage
that utility in the best interests of the public.
I want Microsoft to be able to profit from its innovation, but
not at the loss of innovations which are undermined, not because
they are technically inferior, but because they were not
Microsoft's.
Yours,
Gregory S. Buhtz
(408) 732-0624
[email protected]
MTC-00020243
From: steven.ferguson@ transport.alstom.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28am
Subject: I am not anti-microsoft as I use there products. But the
matter of fact is,
I am not anti-microsoft as I use there products. But the matter
of fact is, what they done regarding the browser wars with netscape
was terrible to say the least. Myself and many people that I speak
to say the same thing, but because it is Microsoft they will get off
lightly as usual, or as the saying goes "money talks"
MTC-00020244
From: Robert Hencke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement. As a student in
computer science, I take this issue very personally. Microsoft has
used its monopoly in the OS market to crush any competing operating
systems (e.g. Be (maker of BeOS, a pretty slick OS) was working on
agreements with several computer companies to distribute the BeOS
along with their computers, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
threaten computer manufacturers into not including BeOS. In the end,
only one company included BeOS with their PC, and even then it was
hidden from the user, most never knew about it. The proposed
settlement does not seem to address this issue.
Also, many open source projects (e.g. Samba and WINE) would be
threatened by the proposed settlement. Samba is vital for many non-
Windows computers to share files on a Windows network (Apple uses
Samba in Mac OS X). Section III(J)(2) would give Microsoft the right
to effectively kill these products.
This is one of many problems I can find with the proposed
settlement. Microsoft has used its presence to bully, shut down and
injure many companies and projects. This settlement does not address
Microsoft's previous actions, nor does it prevent them from making
similar ones in the future. This is an extremely critical decision,
one that will have a very strong and lasting impact on the
technology industry. I strongly urge you to reconsider your
proposal.
Sincerely,
Robert Hencke
Box 292 / 100 Institute Rd.
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 341-0674
MTC-00020245
From: root
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea and does not
effectively address consumer interests. Microsoft has not played
fair and will not have any incentive to play fair unless firm and
strong actions are taken. In my opinion, if Microsoft is not broken
into at least three pieces, the industry will continue to stagnate.
Sincerely,
David M. Karakas
MTC-00020246
From: Doug Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please show Microsoft that their restraint of trade and
monopolistic activities in regards to at least Netscape will be
punished financially. Also restrain them from such activities in the
future through appropriate rules and legislation. Thank you.
Douglas Meyer
MTC-00020247
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
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,
Charles W. Foster
25652 Dodds Road
Escalon, CA 95320-9580
MTC-00020248
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26859]]
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,
Dale T. Hedberg
P.O. Box 368
Breese, IL 62230
MTC-00020249
From: Paul Komarek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am a doctoral student in Algorithms, Combinatorics, and
Optimization at Carnegie Mellon University. My research involves the
fields of artificial intelligence and signal processing. I am
professionally and personally tied to the information technology
economy as a researcher, administrator, purchasing assistant, and as
an ordinary computer user. For this reason I have kept close watch
on the most recent Department of Justice v. Microsoft antitrust
trial. I have read transcripts from the depositions and trial,
numerous court reporters" views, and many related antitrust
and computer decisions. In every way reasonable, I have attempted to
familiarize myself with the applicable laws, economies, and social
structures that surround this and other information technology
cases. I do not claim to be a legal expert; however, I am a citizen
of this country, a member of this society, and as such appreciate
this opportunity to make my views on the proposed settlement known.
Two courts have already stated their legal opinions. Both determined
that Microsoft is a monopolist in the relevant economies. Both ruled
that Microsoft has illegally abused their monopoly position.
Furthermore, this isn't the first time that Microsoft's behavior in
certain computer markets has been called into question by the
Department of Justice. Because the readers of this letter should
already be familiar with this background, there is no need for me to
recall details. Instead, I wish to summarize my feelings about
Microsoft's position in our society, and why I do not believe the
proposed settlement will prevent illegal and unacceptable social
behavior by Microsoft.
The fundamental purpose of our capitalistic economy is to create
efficient markets which serve the needs of the society. The
preferred mechanism for creating efficient markets is fair
competition. Microsoft's past and present behavior suggest that they
have no interest in fair, or even legal, competition. They have been
convicted of stealing another company's software (e.g. Stac
Corporation); they have attempted to circumvent law with respect to
fair employment practices regarding temporary workers; they have
have been convicted of violating Java license agreements with Sun
Corporation with the intent to destroy the benefits to our society
that a platform-neutral programming language might bring; they have
purposefully deceived customers with respect to interoperability of
their software with competitors" software (e.g. the fake
errors reported by Windows 3.0 when run on Digital Research's DR-DOS
operating system, as documented by the pre-trial documents in
Caldera v. Microsoft); they knowingly and purposefully falsified
evidence during the recent Department of Justice v. Microsoft
hearings; they have publicly disparaged United Status courts, and
refuse to accept the guilty verdict received by the lower and
appellate courts; they continue to use their monopoly in the
operating system market to drive other Microsoft products (e.g. the
new Windows Media Player). Clearly I am leaving out many details and
further transgressions of the law and appropriate social behavior by
Microsoft. My point is that Microsoft is an unsportsmanlike cheater
in our economy, has shown and continues to show no interest in
reforming their behavior. Microsoft's failure to admit or even
accept the courts" guilty verdicts suggests that a strong
sentence, or settlement if possible, is needed to end Microsoft's
antisocial behavior. It is clear that the proposed settlement is an
attempt to bring quick, strong remedy to the ailing markets
Microsoft has stifled. However, the proposed settlement is far to
complex, with too many exceptions to too many rules, to be
enforceable without many long and expensive legal battles in the
future. Of particular importance are provisions relating to which
programming interfaces do not need to be disclosed. Quoting from the
proposed settlement,
"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;" and these programming interfaces may be withheld
from any part failing to "meet[] reasonable, objective
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity
and viability of its business, (d) agree[] 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."
(these sections of the proposed settlement are quoted from an
article in an online information technology news service). It is
clearly, plainly stupid to allow Microsoft to establish security
standards which apply only to products released by their
competitors. Not only is this unfair in the best traditions of
Microsoft, but there is no indication that Microsoft is qualified to
establish reasonable security standards. Furthermore, this wording
can easily be construed as allowing Microsoft to withhold
programming interfaces from individuals whose work is not associated
with a business. This should not be ignored at this time when the
viability of volunteer-driven software projects is being tested in
our society. Though easily overlooked, charitable works by computer
hobbyists have an important role in our society, and a significant
impact on our economy. For instance the Apache webserver software,
which currently dominates the web server market, is not owned or
controlled by a business. However, it competes directly with
Microsoft's commercial Internet Information Server webserver
software. It does not require stretching one's imagination to see
that Microsoft could use the exceptions above to disadvantage the
freely available and redistributable Apache webserver software.
Microsoft would only need to identify a programming interface as
being related to financial transactions of any sort to invoke the
security exemption, and could then deny information about their
programming interfaces to the volunteer programmers participating in
the development and maintenance of the Apache webserver software.
The proposed settlement is of such complexity that any
enforcement will be thwarted by arguments about every fine point. I
have already established that Microsoft has repeatedly disregarded
the best interests of our society when making their business
decisions. It is my belief that Microsoft will use the proposed
settlement as a legal defense for future antisocial behavior, by
manipulating technical and legal interpretations in a manner that
violates the spirit of the proposed settlement. Furthermore, I do
not believe that the proposed settlement adequately anticipates this
behavior and provides appropriate enforcement provisions. I am not
proposing any specific changes to the proposed settlement, as I
believe the entire construction is flawed.
That the Department of Justice has agreed to this proposed
settlement deeply worries me. In my eyes, it appears that the
Department of Justice has grown tired of prosecuting their case,
perhaps for political reasons. Therefore, I encourage our government
and country to pursue a sentence for Microsoft which is created
through thorough, and above all, open proceedings guided by Judge
Kollar-Kotelly. I believe that this is our only hope for a sentence
which adequately addresses Microsoft's illegal and antisocial
behavior.
Sincerely,
Paul Komarek
MTC-00020250
From: Micah Groppo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28am
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 26860]]
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,
Micah Groppo
MTC-00020251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am AGAINST the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft
has wreaked terribly havoc on the entire personal computer industry,
and anything but a strong remedy will only allow more damage to be
done, and the existing damage to continue unpunished.
I am concerned about Microsoft sales to schools in general. I'm
concerned about the many actions Microsoft has taken to create a
monopoly on operating systems. I am concerned about Microsoft being
both a competitor and a developer for Apple.
Here is one example. I am a college teacher, and I just got a
brochure to buy Microsoft Office for a total of $44. However, I
would prefer to use Wordperfect and Adobe Persuasion-both
products which have been discontinued, becuase competing products
from Microsoft are included with MS Office (Word and Powerpoint).
Microsoft has killed off all the competition.
Greg Moore
Huntington Beach CA
MTC-00020252
From: Christopher J Grace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Department of Justice,
I have looked up to Microsoft for a long time. I see the measure
of their wealth as the measure of the value they have created. I am
grateful to them every day I enjoy using their products. I respect
the immensity of the task of creating what they have. It feels good
to look up to them. I like to know that there are strong people
using their abilities to make life better. Seeing them persecuted in
court has been sickening. If they were forcing people to buy their
products at the point of a gun, or threatening competitors with acts
of terrorism, that would be one thing, but the only wrong I hear
them accused of is using their position in the marketplace to their
best advantage. Windows did not become dominant because of force.
Microsoft, nor the Government, stifled competition. It became
dominant because the vast majority of people considered it the best
solution. To see such success met with such hostility makes me
wonder what kind of world I'm living in, and how high I care to
aspire. Am I in favor of the settlement? They don't belong in a
courtroom at all. They belong on a pedestal.
Sincerely,
Christopher J Grace
1229 S Troy St
Aurora, CO 80012
303-750-1000
MTC-00020253
From: Christian Brandl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I DON'T AGREE
Ing. Christian Brandl
Salvagnini Maschinenbau GmbH
Abt. Software
Industriezone West-Strasse
5 A-4482 Ennsdorf
Tel.: +43 7223 885 760
Fax.: +43 7223 885 199
MTC-00020254
From: Lim Swee Tat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement sucks. I'm amazed Microsoft is just let of the
hook for the amount of damage they have done to innovation.
Ciao
ST Lim
MTC-00020255
From: Karol Jamison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48pm
Subject: Accept the Settlement!
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today to urge you and the Department of Justice to
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement, which I have never
believed to be in the consumer's best interest to begin with. My
personal experience with computers has only been possible because of
Microsoft's and other's work to integrate technology into a single
package. If I had had to assemble my first computer from components
and drivers I would still be in the dark ages. I have always thought
that this lawsuit stemmed more from vindictiveness or jealousy than
real concern for what's best for the consumer. I won't even mention
the devastating effects on the technology industry or the economy as
a whole. (Although I agree with the many people that blame this
lawsuit for starting the recession)
Microsoft has agreed to a wide range of concessions in order to
put the issue behind them. The agreement is fair; the only thing
left is for the government to accept its own settlement.
During the negotiations, Microsoft agreed to a wide range of
restrictions. They agreed to allow computer makers the flexibility
to install and promote any software that they see fit. They also
agreed not to enter into any agreement obligating any third party to
distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a
fixed percentage. Microsoft also agreed to terms that extended well
beyond the problems that actually at issue in the suit.
Microsoft has given up a lot in order to put the issue beyond
them. They have made an agreement and are ready to move on. All that
is needed is for the government to accept their own agreement.
Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
Sincerely,
KarolAnn S. Jamison
403 154th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98007
425-649-9292
MTC-00020256
From: Brent Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is acceptable as written. Let's
not drag the process out any longer than necessary by forcing
another series of revisions to an already pointless remedy.
Brent Tucker
MTC-00020257
From: Elliot Temple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i think the proposed settlements are a bad idea
Elliot Temple
MTC-00020258
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
My name is Aaron Henderson. I am deeply concerned about the
upcoming settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I have so much
to say about this case that I could not fit it all into a single
letter. But there are at least three arguments to be made against
the government???s case, the practicality of anti-trust and the
morality of punishing the able. First, the government claims that
Microsoft was engaging in anti-competitive business practices.
Exactly what concept of ???competition??? do the government and the
anti-trust laws hold? As far as I know, when there is a competition,
there are winners and there are losers. When Microsoft began
bundling Internet Explorer, Netscape had the vast majority of the
market.Microsoft turned the situation around without resorting to
government intervention. Microsoft was
[[Page 26861]]
winning, honestly; consequently their competitors (who were losing
because they were unable to compete) are now asking the government
to stop Microsoft lest they actually win. This is the equivalent of
a golf player, unable to compete with Tiger Woods, who asks someone
to break Woods??? legs, lest Woods win. Remember, it was the
competitors who brought the suit, not the consumers whom they claim
to want to protect. Curious, is it not,how their selfless protection
of us conveniently removes their greatestcompetitor?
???But whatif they win???? cry our would-be protectors. Well,
that means we consumers have received what we wanted. We have voted,
with our dollars, to support Microsoft, not their competitors. If
the goal of the government is to protect the consumers, should they
not be on Microsoft???s side? After all, they are the ones who have
responded best to the consumer. The less competent losers
(henceforward ???the losers???) in this competition should not be
foisted on an unwillingpublic because they are less competent. What
kind of a world would that be? A world where competition is ruled by
the less able is a world where people would compete to see who could
do the shoddiest job, where the winner of such a contest is the
biggest, laziest slacker, whose reward is money extorted at the
point of a gun from those who committed the unspeakable crime of
being good at what they do. How dare they! How is a law that creates
this situation practical?
This leads me to my last, most important point. How is a law
that creates the above situation moral? If morality is the sanction
of life and a measure of someone???s fitness to exist, what sort of
life is the one described above? What sort of person would desire to
live by the effort they did not exert? If no one else will say it, I
will. It is only the unfit, the unsanctified, in short, the immoral
who choose to live on what they have not chosen to do. The losers
are now asking to be compensated for their lack of ability. It is
immoral. To reward failure is immoral and impractical; it violates
the rights of consumers and the able, honest producers. Do not, I
beg all who have power in this case, do not punish Microsoft.
Ability is neither a vice nor a burden.
Sincerely,
Aaron Henderson.
Email:[email protected]
MTC-00020259
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just want to let you know that everyone who played a part in
letting Micro$oft off scot-free after it was proven that they broke
the law, is loosing my vote.
Ben
University Student
Currently loosing faith in the American legal system
MTC-00020260
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30am
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,
Lori Buvinghausen
590 Armenta
Santa Fe, NM 87505
MTC-00020261
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33am
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,
Jon Saboe
3506 Grantley Road
Baltimore, MD 21215-7340
MTC-00020262
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:32am
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,
Edward J. Ayers
2405 Queenaire Ln.
Modesto, CA 95350-1939
MTC-00020263
From: donnorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft suit
Stop the idiotic witchhunt. Let the socialists at AOL, Sun,
Oracle etc earn their money the old fashioned way. Earn it, don't
try to steal with the help of the government. The state AG's are a
bunch of fools.
MTC-00020264
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30am
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,
Cecilia E. Larson
3201 Pine Rd NE #247
Bremerton, WA 98310-2189
MTC-00020265
From: Thinker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You asked for commentary, this is mine..
I feel that the Microsoft settlement should include in it a
provision that would prevent them from having Windows automatically
associate file types with their own applications upon any number of
unrelated events.
[[Page 26862]]
Having this be the "default" behavior gives them an
opportunity to have their software essentially (for many users)
"remove" competing products. . making them
unusable..
Ideally, Windows should also be sold in a stripped down form
with no built-in hooks to web browsers.. They use this to launch IE
against people's will, and using Captive-X or other built-in hooks
most people don't know about, upload. .essentially exchange
privacy-compromising information with their own servers. . This
is wrong.
Netscape and Internet Exploiter as well as others should be
treated equally and mime types/file associations should be
controllable by an external application.
Also they should be prevented from installing what is
essentially spy-ware in their software as they seem to be doing now.
Barely a week goes by without news of another backdoor that they
have built into Windows. Of course they claim that these
"Trojan horses" are bugs. But given the fact that the
proffered "fixes" often don't fix the holes they purport
to repair, and the number..(there have been so many it cannot be
simple incompetence.) I think that it's clear that they have
criminal intent. They should be prosecuted under the anti-hacking
laws for breaking into people's systems.
Thank you, and "good luck",
Sheldon Pannisi
MTC-00020266
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34am
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,
John Elle
10428 Longwood Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89134-5157
MTC-00020267
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36am
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,
jerry obriant
903 e. 12 th .st.
SWEETWATER, TX 79556-2534
MTC-00020268
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:35am
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,
Kenneth E. K. Hodges
19875 Park Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070-6445
MTC-00020269
From: Thompson, Alan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How DARE you sell out to Microsoft! The department of justice is
supposed to protect the public from companies that illegally
maintain and exploit a monopoly. Dump the weak proposed settlement
and do something worthwhile with my tax dollars; put some real force
into the sanctions against Microsoft. If the appeals court won't go
for a break-up, at least force Microsoft to open-source their OS
code and provide truly secure products. They have a
"gun" to their head and the DOJ has loaded it with
blanks!
Alan Thompson
MTC-00020270
From: Stephen Nicholson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't know if I as a UK citizen am allowed to comment on the
Microsoft Settlement but I shall give it a try and hope to be heard.
To be short and simple I say "no". The proposed
settlement does not go far enough in my opinion. Harsher penalties
should be sought.
Stephen Nicholson
Technician Manager
MTC-00020271
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:40am
Subject: The Suit against Microsoft
Please drop the suit against Microsoft and let them get on with
their business, which is serving its customers the best they can.
I've never understood why government can't stand to see any company
be successful. Of course, the business of government is to prevent
force and fraud, but Microsoft was not involved in "force or
fraud", apparently. The government attempt to level the
playing field inhibits good businesses from doing what they do best:
serve the customers. The market will do the right thing if
government will get out of the way and quit meddling in the affairs
of the market.
If force (the gun) or fraud (as in Enron) occurs, then let the
government bring Microsoft to justice and incarcerate the criminals
involved. I don't see Microsoft as a proper target for the DOJ and
you've been at this too long. Give it up.
Regards,
Robert D. Sharp
9006 Patrick Ave.
Arleta, CA 91331
MTC-00020272
From: Robert Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: MS proposal
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, fake "grassroots"
campaigns, PR, and huge campaign donations.
The current MS "abuse of monopoly" is no longer a
Windows problem, but is an OFFICE
[[Page 26863]]
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.
MTC-00020273
From: Thomas B. Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I completely oppose the Proposed Final Judgment tentatively
agreed on 06-Nov-2001 between DoJ and Microsoft.
The Proposed Final Judgment has a multitude of weak definitions,
leaves several holes where Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct is
not regulated, and provides insufficient protections to ISVs who
wish to use Microsoft APIs.
I demand that DoJ reject this Proposed Final Judgment and
rewrite it in much stronger terms. The comments at Slashdot are a
good starting point for this.
Thank you for your time.
Thomas B. Cox
"Saepe in errore sed numquam in dubito"
[email protected] http://www.geocities.com/tbcox23/
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it
with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H.L. Mencken
MTC-00020274
From: laurent.catinaud(a)worldonline.fr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree
Laurent Catinaud
MTC-00020275
From: HoustonAndBarb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft was found guilty.
There is nothing in the settlement that looks even remotely
punitive. How can this be justice?
Houston Brennan.
Portland, Oregon.
MTC-00020276
From: Kevin Macken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs
AM extremely disappointed with the provisions of the Microsoft
settlement as disclosed in the press. I believe the 9 states who
have chosen to pursue Microsoft on their own have a better
settlement in mind for the public. Please adopt their stance on this
issue.
Personally, I believe the break up of "Office" from
the "OS" is the only way to assure competition.
Otherwise Microsoft will continue to "embrace and
extend" other standards so that we will never have a choose
except Microsoft's products.
Please re-introduce competition to the computer market place by
supporting the 9 states or breaking up Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Kevin Macken
Litchfield Park, Arizona
MTC-00020277
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:41am
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,
Grace Alvarez
P.O. Box 1914
Twain Harte, CA 95383-1914
MTC-00020278
From: Silver, Russell P. JR ( COMMO )
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 2:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever, Your recently sell-out to Microsoft in the form of
your so called settlement DOES NOT correct nor punish Microsoft. It
is worded in such a way to allow MS to continue to behave as it has
and continue to reap the benefits. Your settlement caves on all the
important areas. Ms will continue to use its influence to bundle
more and more into the OS until third party applications aren't
needed. Impose REAL regulations on MS. Require them to follow the
law-AND don't let them benefit from their past misconduct. In
the 90's they used IE to destroy Netscape for control of the Web,
they rewrote Java so it would only work on their products. As it
stands now, you might as well sit as MS's table because your
"settlement" is nothing more than MS's wishlist.
Russell Silver
MTC-00020279
From: Alex Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs:
I'd like to take his opportunity to comment one of the
inadequacies I see in the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Case.
Specifically, the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) appears to attempt
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. It omits, however, perhaps the most
effective method available to eliminate the Applications Barrier to
Entry: making sure that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers to
non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to
run application programs written for Windows. In fact, Paragraph 52
of the Findings of Fact considers just this possibility. As the
owner of an information systems consulting business, I find myself
no alternative but to recommend Microsoft operating systems to my
clients who must use software written to the Microsoft APIs.
Requiring Microsoft to publish these APIs would make it possible for
developers of other operating systems to allow the running of these
applications. This would provide valid and healthy competition as an
alternative to the current Microsoft monopoly.
This letter highlights just one of the many problems I see
within the PFJ. I hope that the U.S. Department of Justice will take
proactive measures to correct the inadequacies as highlighted by
this and other correspondence received during this public comment
period.
Thank you-
Alexander M. Johnson, P.E.
Arete Systems
242 De Laveaga Park Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
phone: 831.420.0772
fax: 831.420.0838
e-mail: [email protected]
www.aretesystems.com
MTC-00020280
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42am
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
[[Page 26864]]
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,
Betty Zeitler
1680 133rd Ave. NW
Minneapolis, MN 55448-7027
MTC-00020281
From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I've been checking out the case details (a bit) and think that
the current Proposed Final Judgment needs to be strengthened. A few
of the definition could be strengthened. An example is Section III.
A. 2. which should also incorporate computers with a non-Microsoft
OS. [http://www.kegel.com/remedy/]
This current settlement does not seem to punish Microsoft as
noted by Steve Jobs [http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/
0,1551,48660,00.html]. The poor practices of this company should
stop.
Peter
MTC-00020282
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46am
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 Ann Heffernan
11171 Oakwood Dr.
Loma Linda, CA 92354-4807
MTC-00020283
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
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,
Thiel and Lola Gomm
Gen Dly
Smoot, WY 83126
MTC-00020284
From: J(038)B Seybold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While the proposed settlement appears to meet the defined goals,
I am very concerned that the definition of "Microsoft
Middleware Product" in the "REVISED PROPOSED FINAL
JUDGMENT" is far too narrow and restrictive. Specifically, in
"Section IV, Definitions", paragraph K.2.b.i, the
definition states ". . .is, or in the year preceding
the commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product
was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired
by Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System
Product. . ."
This definition appears to exclude functionality which was based
directly upon or substantially identical in function to the a
previous commercial product, but where said functionality was
modified by Microsoft. This is a major exclusion, because it is very
rare in commercial software for unchanged software to published for
two consecutive years. It is common practice for Microsoft to modify
software, either by reducing functionality, or by adding
functionality, when incorporating the functionality of previously
commercial software. Under the provisions of the proposed
definition, similar but distinctly different functionality would
exclude such modified software from the Microsoft Middleware Product
definition. Microsoft could therefore make small or even trivial
changes in software that would otherwise be clearly defined as
Microsoft Middle Product, and thereby claim that it was exempt from
the provisions of this judgment.
Further, the definition of "Microsoft Middleware
Product" in the "REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT"
carefully excludes new software functionality developed by Microsoft
and included as Microsoft Middleware or as part of the Windows
operating system, with the intent of competing directly with
commercially available software to reduce competition. The pattern
shown in the development and release of Internet Explorer,
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows
Messenger, and Outlook Express is now being repeated in many other
areas. For example, the capabilities of Microsoft Backup has been
extended to include the file backup functionality provided by
NovaStor Corporation's NovaDisk, or Veritas Corporation's Backup
Exec. Since NovaStor and Veritas have not been acquired by
Microsoft, Microsoft Backup does not meet the definition of a
Microsoft Middleware Product. Therefore, I suggest that the Proposed
Final Judgment does not provide the necessary restrictions to
preclude continued anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft to
unlawfully protect and maintain its operating system monopoly in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
I suggest that Specifically, in "Section IV,
Definitions", paragraph K.2.b.i, be modified to state
"i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by
from a Windows Operating System Product,"
Thank you for your consideration.
John B. Seybold
MTC-00020285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To my belief the settlement reached by two parties is fair and
it should be finalized as it is written. Microsoft has made a great
contribution to the economy of the country and to the
communications. It should be praised.
Sincerely,
Ghassem Ladjevardi
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020286
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46am
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,
Robert G. Kraatz
24321 Dry Canyon Cold Creek Road
Calabasas, CA 91302-3209
MTC-00020287
From: eva breyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:50am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
It is time to settle this case.
[[Page 26865]]
The settlement agreement is very harsh on Microsoft, the company
that has been THE major driver of the economic and technological
boom of the 90's. By creating a standard Operating System for all
personal computers Microsoft has been instrumental in making
computers affordable and easy to use. THE CLEAR WINNER HAS BEEN THE
CONSUMER.
Microsoft's jealous competitors started this lawsuit because
they could not compete with the greatest American company on a fair
business basis, even though their business practicies have been just
as aggressive. We consumers do not want to turn the clock back to a
multitude of incompatible Operating Systems that only work on
certain manufacturers computers and raise the cost of application
software. We want to be free to chose.
Eva Breyer
MTC-00020288
From: Jason Pascucci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a long time Microsoft user and software developer, and not
having particularly benefited because of it, I have several problems
with the Microsoft Settlement as it currently exists. I believe that
the fundamental problems of Microsoft's worst business practices
remain unaddressed. Some of those are:
a) Consistent business practice of taking existing innovations,
stripping them down to component parts, and producing a solution
that is (usually barely) "good enough" without being
"better", where the real differentiator is that they
ship a "good enough" solution free. By bundling many
software systems that fundamentally do not belong to part of their
Operating System, they stifle competition.
The "operating system" of a machine is a defined
thing. It never had nor ever should include a web browser, or a
media player, or restrictive and incompatible authentication models.
b) refusing to implement interoperable, "open" and
compatible solutions (c.f. Sun's Java versus Microsoft's
implementation, IE's built-in incompatibility with existing
standards (thus impacting Netscape), etc)
c) In Microsoft's quest for market dominance, they are so busy
in pursuing market-blocking activities that they fundamentally do
not provide sufficient resources to make their own products
significantly better. Microsoft does not significantly update
products whose competitors do not impinge on their existing, near
dominant, market-share. They rely on the fact that the barrier to
entry is so high, and that existing problems could be addressed for
far less than the cost of full re-implementation, to dissuade
competition and avoid making important updates. Fundamentally, the
original proposals of splitting Microsoft may have been adequate to
level the playing field.
Another option not apparently considered, but the most useful to
address the problems, would be merely to force the unbundling of
-all- unrelated components: if a user could buy each
component separately, he could price and compare products, and pick
the one best suited to his needs. And, in that scenario, Microsoft
would be in the same boat as all other competitors: either make
better components, or risk losing business.
JRP
MTC-00020289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46am
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,
Shirley Kardell
211 Bell Canyon Rd.
Bell Canyon, CA 91307-1111
MTC-00020290
From: Roberto Mello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir/Madam,
I am writing this to express my dissatisfaction with the
Proposed Final Judgement to the Microsoft Antitrust case.
One of my main concerns with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFG)
is that it supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but
it defines "API" so narrowly that many important APIs
are not covered.
If these APIs and terms are tor clearly defined, it will leave
many loopholes with which Microsoft will have ample opportunity to
continue with its anti-competitive practices.
I urge the Department of Justice to take appropriate measures to
make sure such unjustice does not happen.
Best Regards,
Roberto Mello
Undergraduate Computer Science student, Utah State University
Computer Science,
Utah State University
http://www.sdl.usu.edu/
Space Dynamics Lab, Developer
MTC-00020291
From: Lynn Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my disappointment about the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial.
The proposed settlement will have little, if any, effect in
curbing Microsoft's illegal behavior. Having read both Judge
Jackson's "Findings of Fact" and "Final
Judgement" in the antitrust trial and the appellate court's
decision, and having read the proposed settlement, it is difficult
to imagine how Microsoft's attorney's were able to so successfully
roll the government negotiator, in light of the malicious behavior
of which Microsoft was found guilty. The proposed settlement has
holes big enough to fly a Microsoft 777 through.
Microsoft is an unrepentant monopolist. Microsoft's past actions
have hurt the marketplace and its present actions continue to do so,
even after having been found guilty of egregiously violating
antitrust laws. For example, after having been found guilty in the
antitrust trial, Microsoft has subverted the "open"
kerberos security standard in a way that can have only adverse
consequences for platform-independent computing, effectively
preventing non-Microsoft software from seamlessly interoperating
with Microsoft software in a networked computing environment. This
decreases consumer choice, thus stifling competition.
The government won the case, and won it bigtime. The proposed
settlement is in proportion with neither the magnitude of the
government's victory in the case, nor the magnitude of the egregious
actions Microsoft took to stifle competition in the marketplace, for
which they were found guilty. The proposed settlement must be thrown
out and a settlement-which should include a large fine ($5
billion, at least) and serious restrictions on Microsoft's
conduct-should be pursued.
Regards,
Lynn Clark
Software Engineer
599 W Sandbar Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
MTC-00020292
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:57am
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.
[[Page 26866]]
Sincerely,
Mary Fisher
2242 Foots Creek Rd.
Gold Hill, OR 97525-9711
MTC-00020293
From: Dean Antonelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Business Practices on Trial
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. But, with their enormous
monopoly gained resources they are able to buy settlements 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.
Microsoft is the only large hi tech company to grow their
earnings per share EACH quarter in 2001 and to increase their stock
price by 30% BECAUSE they are a monopoly and not subject to pricing
pressures.
Microsoft's arrogance is magnified in these times when Americans
are making sacrifices and responding with unprecedented patriotism
to threats against our country and threats against our inherited
legal system which protects us all and 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-00020294
From: Ken Rowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support Microsoft all the way. Please stop the needless
intervention.
Ken Rowan, CA
#117-4675 Valley Drive
Vancouver, BC V6J 4B7
CANADA
MTC-00020295
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48am
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,
Eva Lano
8017-212 Street SW
Unit 5
Edmonds, WA 98026-7446
MTC-00020296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:54am
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,
Edward Ioffe
53 Paul St
#16
Newton, MA 02459
MTC-00020297
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to comment on what is a seriously flawed
"settlement" in this Case. In its current form, this
"Settlement" is a giveaway to Microsoft,with flimsy,
avoidable "penalties" of no substance whatsoever..it's
LOADED with loopholes. Microsoft deserves REAL punishment. I propose
three options here:
1. Microsoft must be forced to divulge to the world at large its
specs, current and future, for its ".DOC" file format,
the one used to create documents in Microsoft WORD..its famous
wordprocessor.
2. Microsoft must allow and and ALL Computer Manufacturers whom
it licenses to sell its Operating System..the freedom to have SOME
machines preloaded with The Other Guy's Product..be it Linux,
FreeBSD, IBM's OS/2, or Netware. Certainly Microsoft will be given
its normal Licensing rights via the Computer Maker, regarding how
its OWN products are installed, etc..but if the Maker has other
machines with a competing Operating System on it? Tough if Microsoft
doesn't like it. Give our Computer makers some freedom!
3. Any future "security lapses" TIABLE TO A
MICROSOFT SECURITY FLAW should cost them heavily in fines and forced
punitive corrective-measures.
Thanks for listening.
Very Truly Yours,
Robert McMorrow
MTC-00020298
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:05am
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,
Robert Hattendorf
PSC 3 Box 6654
APO AP 96266-0066, AZ 85351
MTC-00020299
From: Trevor Bittinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56am
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-00020300
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
After three long years of costly court battles, Microsoft and
the government have settled an antitrust suit that has profound
implications for all software publishers, the
[[Page 26867]]
rest of the computer industry and consumers. This settlement will
surely give a boost to our lagging economy. The settlement, with its
new rules, will provide certainty about compliance and thereby
ensure that the computer industry can continue delivering advanced
technology to the marketplace.
Therefore, no new litigation should be brought to the courts by
the "Feds" beyond this agreement.
Sincerely,
C. C. Chenoweth
4519 134th PL SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
MTC-00020301
From: Nault, James CDR (C6F)
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I am writing this to express my support for Microsoft
Corporation and to rise in objection to the government thinking that
it has the right to throttle the productive genius of one of
Aerica's finest companies. I have chosen to use some Microsoft
products at work and at home and find them to be excellent. They
have helped me be very productive. We should be rewarding Microsoft
for their contributions to our economy, not punishing them. I do not
recognize the right of the government to intrude into the business
place in this manner. I am in the United States Navy, and I can tell
you that it is very disheartening to be willing to give my life to
the defense of freedom in America, only to see it eroded from the
inside out. I implore you to rethink the position of the government
on this issue and give Microsoft the free hand it requires to be as
productive as it can be. If you throttle Microsoft's productive
ability, we will all lose, including the competitors it has
supposedly shut out by force (which I disagree with). No one has put
a gun to anyone's head and ordered them to buy Microsoft's products.
It is all a matter of choice. Are we to punish corporations now for
giving away things free? That is simply too much to believe. I am
trusting you to do the right thing. Be strong, America will support
your decision. Thanks, sincerely, Jim Nault, CDR, U.S. Navy.
MTC-00020302
From: Duane Maxwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to go on record as being opposed to the current proposed
settlement in the anti-trust case against Microsoft. As a computer
professional for nearly 25 years in various capacities, and as the
founder of several software companies, I have witnessed firsthand
the stifling effect that Microsoft's dominance and predatory
business practices have had on the industry. Many times I have heard
from investors that they would invest in a good idea except for the
fear that Microsoft would leverage their operating system dominance
to co-opt the market once it becomes lucrative. Witness the past
situation with the web browsers, disk compression utilities, etc.,
and the current battles over multimedia, network services, instant
messaging, and handheld computers.
The current settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its
past behavior, nor does it meaningfully prevent the company from
engaging in similar activities in the future. I hope that you will
consider much more aggressive remedies in this case.
In particular, I would like to suggest one: Prohibit Microsoft
from distributing their OS software preinstalled on any computers
for the term of ten years, and prohibit sales of hardware/software
bundles and discounts containing Microsoft software. Customers would
be required to pay for and install Windows independent of the
computer hardware, which may contain other competing operating
systems preinstalled. This would allow an opportunity for other
current and future operating systems vendors to be able to make a
pitch to customers that they offer a viable alternative. Much of
Microsoft's dominance comes from their exclusionary practices with
regard to preinstallation. It is nearly impossible to buy a Intel-
compatible computer without Windows preinstalled, and Microsoft has
used illegal business practices to assure that it stays that way.
Please give the customers a chance to make the choice denied them in
the past.
Sincerely,
Duane Maxwell
La Jolla, California
MTC-00020303
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:06am
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,
Ruth Stroud
12110 N. Fairwood Dr.
Spokane, WA 99218-2935
MTC-00020304
From: Bryon S Mesarch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
I am a Value Added Reseller (VAR) in the IT marketplace. I have
followed the Microsoft case extensively throughout its history. I
have read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RFPJ) agreement and
feel that it is fair to both sides. It may be that longtime
Microsoft rivals are not satisfied with the agreement, but their
view may be skewed by anger and bitterness. While it is certainly
fair to argue that Microsoft was wholly unfair in its business
practices, they have made long strides in pushing information
technology into the consumers" hands. Microsoft may not have
originally possessed innovation, but they have brought it forcefully
to market.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RFPJ) really takes the
teeth out of Microsoft's rough sense of business practices, but at
the same time does not cripple this American frontier company.
Please remember that Microsoft is keeping America very much ahead in
the world of technology.
Please Approve the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RFPJ) and
allow this matter to be settled once and for all.
Bryon S. Mesarch, Vice President
Silicon Mesa, LLC
MTC-00020305
From: Keith A Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough!
Let's Stop The Microsoft Witch Hunt.
Keith A Morris
MTC-00020306
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
It seems like the proposed settlement for Microsoft antitrust
trial is flawed. Because of many different legal loopholes in it,
Microsoft will be able to find ways to easily exploit their
customers and OEMs to their advantage.
A great analysis of flaws in the proposed settlement could be
found here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html . Below are my
main complains about the settlement:
1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols. The complete
documentation for these must be made public and be updated in a
timely manner. Closed APIs and file formats are a major barrier to
entry, since virually no company can afford to convert its existing
documents into a new format. Currently anyone using Microsoft
products is effectively "locked in" to those products
because they cannot be easily converted to another format. While
some attempts had been made toproduce programs and/or libraries that
can read and write files in Microsoft's formats, they are only
partially compatible and usually fail on complex documents. The main
reasons for this are undocumented changes in Microsoft APIs and lack
of complete documentation. Anything that can be done to reduce this
barrier can only help to create more opportunity in the market.
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
[[Page 26868]]
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. Allowing Microsoft to
continue to take advantage of that situation by prohibiting those
companies from offering alternatives effectively means allowing
Microsoft to continue to hold the industry hostage.
3) Microsoft's attempts to extend their monopoly in new markets
* Microsoft attempted (often successfully) to extend their monopoly
in several new markets already, using the same monopolistic tactics.
Most prominent examples are:
-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), and also to sabotage development Sun Microsystems"
Java language on Windows platform in favor of their own
".NET" system.
-Audio/Video market, where Microsoft used their OS monopoly to
push products likeWindows Media Player and gain unfair advantage
over competitors such as Real Player and QuickTime
-The failed attempt to turn an educational lawsuit into a way
to inject their software into yet another market
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.
Sincerely,
Anton Vysotskiy
Software Developer/Network Engineer
7108 13 Ave #2F
Brooklyn, NY 11228
MTC-00020307
From: George Petrov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00020308
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:13am
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,
Ramona Miller
1309 Woodbridge Trail
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-1624
MTC-00020309
From: Alex Lewin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:16am
Subject: the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
Sincerely,
Alex Lewin
MTC-00020310
From: C T Archer
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 2:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C T Archer
24280 SE 1st Place
SAMMAMISH, WA 98074
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
I believe every word below absolutely. The Microsoft trial
squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a
serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
C T Archer
MTC-00020311
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:08am
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 Malak
3909 Prince William Dr.
Fairfax, VA 22031-3867
MTC-00020312
From: Charles Tinsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:14am
Subject: STOP IT NOW!
PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THIS WITCH-HUNT AGAINST MICROSOFT!
MTC-00020313
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:17am
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,
John Laurence
3491 Mt. Burnham Place
San Diego, CA 92111
MTC-00020314
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
So you found them "guilty of abusing their monopoly power
but you are going to let them off with the most mild slap on the
wrist" is how the settlement reads to almost everyone.
All monopolies that have been broken have resulted in massive
benefits for the consumer, and long term the whole economy,
[[Page 26869]]
I see no reason why you should think that the Microsoft monopoly is
one that should be allowed to continue.
The DOJ has made itself look weak and ineffectual, it won, then
allowed Microsoft to walk all over it. What respect can you have if
you do not follow through clear court victories with appropriate
remedies? At the very very least you -must- remove all
the additional clauses that allow Microsoft to not disclose
interfacing information, so people can interface to Microsoft
operating systems. Microsoft will deem all useful information a
"security risk" and not disclose it, and nothing will
have changed. The world needs prompt and full disclosure of all
networking protocols and file formats, including those for Microsoft
office and related products. No exception clauses allowed.
Please think again, and significantly toughen the terms of the
settlement.
Rick Stones
Rick Stones, Systems Architect, GEHE UK IT division
External phone +44 (0)2476 432725, internal 2725
MTC-00020315
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:16am
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,
Skip Paynter
615 NE 153rd Ave
Vancouver, WA 98684
MTC-00020316
From: Morio Murase
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Before I say anything that might indicate to the contrary, (deep
breath) the settlement is a lousy idea!
I am a PC user. Therefore, if I am to do what 90% of other PC
users do, I am forced to use Windows. "Nonsense!" cries
Microsoft. "There's PLENTY of competition! Just look at what
Linux is doing!" This is precisely why I am forced to use
Windows: because Microsoft is so large, they will stop at nothing,
ignoring any moral or ethical standards set forth, to dominate their
markets, or, I daresay, the world. They have challenged you, and you
cowed to their demands for whatever reason was given to you. You
are, as police and district attorneys everywhere would say, giving
them a "slap on the wrist".
Fines are not the answer. Nor is redistributing the wealth that
Microsoft commands; neither will slow the pace of this monstrosity
that devours any that it thinks will stand in its way. Does this not
sound like Standard Oil or Ma Bell? Both were split apart into
smaller companies to re-introduce competition and give consumers a
greater amount of choices in the marketplace. Yet by this move you
allow the largest computer software corporation to exist, with its
hungry sights on every computer in operation today.
MTC-00020317
From: zan/Charles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to settling the
antitrust matter with Microsoft in the manner proposed by the
company and agreed to by some of the states participating in the
suit.
It strikes me as especially bizarre to remedy the hindrance of
competitors by bundling free competing products with a dominant
product, Windows, by allowing the offending company to give even
more free software away. This educational "gift" is
especially insidious, because it gives Microsoft an easy inroad into
the education market where it still has a competitor in the form of
Apple Computer. In Microsoft's eyes, this is merely another software
giveaway that will reap profits further down the line.
Microsoft engaged in illegal, anticompetitive actions and
continues to do so. For instance, by recently integrating its MSN
internet services with its Internet Explorer browser, Microsoft was
able to wrest the position as top web destination for searches from
Yahoo! Their tactic: convert the default "page not
found" into an MSN search, driving users to their own products
and advertisers. Experts note that fully half of Microsoft's MSN
search visitors arrive there via this method.
Users do not try MSN's search, compare it to other services and
favor the best provider; they are sheperded there by default as a
result of using other Microsoft products. In a free-market system, I
thought the point was to reward innovation and quality, not
ubiquitousness.
But Microsoft seems to think that only its own interests matter.
Again and again, its tactics are designed for nothing else but the
benefit of Microsoft, and are very seldom beneficial to the American
consumer. Bearing in mind that Microsoft has been asked before to
voluntarily alter its behavior and it has failed to do so, I urge
you to reject this ridiculous settlement
Charles Christensen
Chicago, IL
MTC-00020318
From: matthew du puy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would truly like to understand how Microsoft's giving of
software products they have already produced, to schools and people
that would never buy them anyway punishes their monopoly and
decreases their market share. The only true cost to Microsoft giving
their software to these people is the cost of printing the manuals
and CDs. This does nothing to make amends to the millions of
Microsoft customers who have suffered overpriced, un-inovative, poor
quality products because alternative competing products have been
either bought or forced out of business by Microsoft. Furthermore, I
would like to understand how training many of the young recipients
of this settlement to use Microsoft products helps improve awareness
and support of competing products.
As an engineering graduate student, I don't consider myself a
fool but I simply can't imagine a scenario under which the currently
proposed settlement reduces Microsoft's monopoly of several markets.
Maybe I have a poor imagination. I'd very much like to see
alternative settlements under which, Microsoft's competitors and
customers are awarded monetary or other creative product replacement
settlements such as RedHat Software's proposal to supply the same
underprivileged schools with computers using RedHat's software at
Microsoft's dime. As a person who is aware of the social/political,
technological and economical impacts of this case, I urge you to
reconsider this settlement.
Thanks,
Matthew Du Puy
MTC-00020319
From: Ben Chambers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:19am
Subject: Proposed settlement
Having looked through it, I think it's a bad idea. The DOJ
should push Microsoft to be more fair; as it is, they're getting a
slap on the wrist and won't change their ways with the current
settlement.
MTC-00020320
From: Mick Angel
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
As a user of Microsoft products (both at home and at work) I
feel that the results of the settlement does not go far enough in
either:
a) penalising Microsoft for the previous monopolistic
tactics- which have seriously (to my mind) reduced the
innovation in the desktop and browser market
b) limiting the monopolistic tendencies of microsoft in the
future
It is sad to see a toothless anti-trust case which seemed to
start with the right intentions but, at its finish, has become a
farce and a whitewash.
Regards,
Michael Angel.
MTC-00020321
From: Dr. Martin Stahl
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 26870]]
Date: 1/24/02 3:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is not a good idea. I DO NOT AGREE. I fear,
Microsoft will dominate the software and the internet in future,
ending in the bancruptcy of the competitors.
Greetings from the city of the CEBIT
Dr. Martin Stahl
Brunirode 96
D-30880 Laatzen (near Hannover)
Germany
MTC-00020322
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24am
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.
Personally it is my position that you would do a better job by
requiring all companies like Microsoft, AOL, Netscape, etc. To
design all future programs to be used by the visually impaired/blind
community out of the box.
The blindness community is probably one of the largest consumer
groups of computers and the technology therein, but yet we still
must struggle to make our adaptive software work with current
programs.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Reagan Lynch
1304 Manor St.
Midland, TX 79703-4935
MTC-00020323
From: joaquin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
As an American living overseas and concerned about the
monopolistic practices of Microsoft in my country, I have to say
that the proposed settlement is not only a very bad idea, it is a
farce. Microsoft has been proven extremely guilty and should recieve
a very stiff sentence instead of the feeble wrist slap that is
currently on the table. It is sad that after winning the case so
handily, the DOJ has backed down instead of demanding the kind
justice that would truly benefit the American consumer.
Joaquin Cruz.
MTC-00020324
From: D. G. Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Although this issue isn't connected directly with US Antitrust
laws, I thought you should be aware of Microsoft Israel's
("MSI") behavour.
Microsoft Israel were annouced as a Monopoly by the Head of the
Antitrust authority in Israel, Adv. Dror Shturm, a couple of months
ago. But such an announcment hasn't made MSI change it's behavour
towards Macintosh users in Israel. For a couple of years now,
Macintosh users in Israel are requesting again, and again, that
Microsoft Office for the Macintosh would support the Hebrew
language. An issue that is taken for granted in the PC platform.
MSI keeps refusing to do so, stating that they do not have the
knowledge nor manpower to perform such a task. A deeper
investigation of the matter, and discussions between Apple France
and MSI, revealed the sad fact that MSI were "ordered"
by MS, NOT to localize Microsoft Office to hebrew, no matter what !
Their concern is that people in Israel would actually prefer
Macintosh computers, rather than Windows based PCs.
There is alot more to be said about this. But, the bottom line
is, that MS and MSI are intensionally damaging the free competition
in the Israeli computer software market. Misuse of market power is
an Antitrust felony, if I'm not mistaking.
Please consider this issue. I would be glad to provide more
information on this matter, by demand.
Dov G. Cohen,
Law Student
Bar-Ilan University
ISRAEL
ICQ#: 17303370
MTC-00020325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24am
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,
Verne Kelling
4015 232nd Ave. S.E.
Sammamish, WA 98075
MTC-00020326
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:23am
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,
Patricia Haldin
1740 E. La Veta #310
Oange, CA 92868
MTC-00020327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:22am
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,
Donald Gardner
9459 Geordie Way
Riverside, CA 92509-1060
MTC-00020328
From: Jason Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
[[Page 26871]]
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The proposed Microsoft case settlement is in my opinion
fundamentally flawed and wholly inadequate. It should not be adopted
without complete revision.
1. Only a separation of the Windows operating system from the
Office Suite and from Internet Explorer can "unfetter"
the Windows market and allow competitors to emerge. Only such a
three-way breakup of Microsoft can end the company's unlawful
conduct. This Proposed Final Judgment is completely inadequate
because it does not separate control of Office from control of
Windows, and control of Internet Explorer from both Office and
Windows.
2. The prohibited conduct provisions of the Proposed Final
Judgment cannot be effectively enforced with regard to Microsoft due
to the extraordinarily subtle ways in which the company can shift
and redefine the operating systems environment to the disadvantage
of its competitors. Any effective settlement must lay out
enforcement provisions and attempt to address these subtleties.
3. The definitions presented in the Proposed Final Judgment for
"middleware", "API", and the "Windows
Operating System Product" are vague and easily circumvented by
Microsoft. The company can trivially evade the intent of the
settlement by altering its product naming and/or distribution
schemes in obvious ways. Any reasonable settlement must have its
provisions continue in force regardless of minor shifts in
Microsoft's nomenclature and marketing spin.
4. The Proposed Final Judgment fails entirely to protect
potential competitors to the Windows Operating System because it
limits the usage of information disclosed by Microsoft under the
settlement to use by those producing competing applications
software. Any settlement which is to restore competition to the
operating systems marketplace must protect competing operating
systems, and facilitate their compatibility with Windows.
In summary, this Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public
interest and should not be adopted.
Sincerely,
Jason Campbell
Chief Technical Officer, Zack Systems, Inc.
310 Guerrero Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
MTC-00020329
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25am
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,
Lynne White
927 Arabian Ave.
Winter Springs, FL 32708
MTC-00020330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:30am
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,
Walter Lee
157 Baltusrol Dr.
P.O. Box 1828
Fairfield Glade,
TN 38558-1828
MTC-00020331
From: Jan Vilhuber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement falls far short from actually making sure a
crafty monopolist relents and desists. Microsoft will just continue
business as usual (in a slightly different form to work around hard
to enforce regulation), and new entrants will still not be able to
get a foothold, which is bad for users and the computer business.
Jan Vilhuber
San Luis Obispo, CA
Jan Vilhuber
Cisco Systems,
San Jose
[email protected]
(408) 527-0847
MTC-00020332
From: WAYNE KELLAR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:30am
Subject: It's time to stop!!!!!!!!
The Fed. Gov. blackmail of Microsoft and the welfare for
Netscape and all the other competitors of Microsoft. This I would
expect in the Old Russia or China today, but not here in this
Country where the free open market has made this the greatest
civilization in history.
It's time to stop the socialist/ communistic approach. I think
you have too many still their from the slick willie era and house
should be cleaned or you need to go back and retake ecom. 101. You
are going to keep screwing around and destroy the most innovative
industry to come down the pike in history, who single handily
created more jobs than you can tally, my guess would be more than
the automotive industry did in it's time. Who is going to suffer?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and our economy.
The turn down in the economy before September 11, 2001 I'm sure
can be tied to you'alls suit against Microsoft.
I guess your'alls response will be to sit back all smug with
your thumbs hooked in your suspenders and say look what we have done
HURRAH, HURRAH!!! REMEMBER YOU ARE PART OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TOO,
SO THOSE hurrah hurrah better be said in a whisper because you are
going to look like fools.
Wayne Kellar
120B Highview
Versailles, Ky. 40383
MTC-00020333
From: Anthony W. Youngman
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please note that this is a resend, slightly modified, of my
earlier document. I've added a mention of OS/2 in the "dual
boot" section. Please note also, I understand that the subject
of the email has to be "Microsoft Settlement". I didn't
realise earlier, and I believe my email had a subject something like
"Tunney Act".
Yours
Anthony Youngman
MTC-00020334
From: Neto Thong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Justice,
We can notice from the lifestyle of those working in Microsoft
and we know that they have this absence of fear, a god-like stand,
knowing and is assured that MICROSOFT, above all, will withstand the
brunt of the wheels of justice running them over.
If you can see, even in our tiny island here in Asia, we can
feel how Microsoft is controlling the market of system integration.
You must be a "big fish" or a "big player"
before they can deal with you, in terms of the licensing fees. If
not for this issues, we could have developed an embedded device
using WinCE as OS. However, due to the license fee, we moved into
Linux and other OS conceivable without paying the high price.
Well, let the voice of the people decide on the fate of the
Giant. Will we allow them to continue living at an extravagant
lifestyle at our own expense?
[[Page 26872]]
Thank you.
From a small voice,
Neto Thong
MTC-00020335
From: Wong, Mun Hoh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:36am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
I believe Microsoft deserves harsher penalties than the
Department of Justice has proposed because of the business conduct
which Microsoft is practising toward consumer as well as competitor
to monopolise the market. If this persist, people will lost their
freedom to choose and become a slave to Microsoft.
Thanks You.
Regards,
Alex
MTC-00020336
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:35am
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,
Art Zimmer
Box 1582
kODIAK, AK 99615
MTC-00020337
From: jamie macdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
to whom it may concern,
you have been given the power to do right, take it and make
microsoft pay not in software that it can make for free but in money
to those it has hurt. do this and we will know you are some what
fair and may not riot and distroy you after all maja macdonald
MTC-00020338
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:37am
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,
Earl Dennis
35246 US 19N
#304
Palm Harbor, FL 34684-1931
MTC-00020339
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:33am
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,
Del Johnson
3617 Co. Rd. 19, Box B
Auburn, IN 46706-9417
MTC-00020340
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:36am
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,
Helen-Elizabeth Dunning
P.O. Box C
Cosmopolis, WA 98537-2003
MTC-00020342
From: Richard Finegold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
In the proposed final judgement, Microsoft isn't required to
disclose the formats of its various "Office" files. For
example, with Microsoft's monopoly, people have become accustomed to
sending Word documents in their native format. Microsoft doesn't
have a lot of documentation any more for their Word document
structure, so competitors must "reverse-engineer" the
structure and implement what they can. People might be satisfied
with a competitor's software-with the sole exception-of
Word document interpretation, and thus might switch to Microsoft's
software-solely-on this basis. Thus, a barrier to entry
is maintained.
Broadly speaking, most of the proposed settlement doesn't do
much to correct or even address Microsoft's past abuses-see
Dan Kegel's analysis (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
Microsoft commits crime but is then still able to profit from it. I
hope this isn't how the Justice System is intended to work. If it is
(right to profit from past crimes), then Kevin Mitnick ought to have
a computer (because that would enable him to profit from past
crimes).
I am not happy with this proposed settlement, please consider
this a "no" vote. A stronger remedy please!
Thanks!
Richard Finegold
1400 Bellevue Way SE #4
Bellevue WA 98004
MTC-00020343
From: Barnard En Lai Teng
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe that the settlement is punishment enough for
the illegal practices that Microsoft has performed on others in the
industry. The settlement should be more than just a mere, bonus
marketing move for Microsoft. You are performing in a case that is
crucial for everyone in the Modern world, and allowing such a small
punishment to be settled, is unsettling. It will just allow
Microsoft to continue to bully.
Barnard Teng.
B. Arch, NZCAD.
MTC-00020344
From: Patrick L. McHargue
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 26873]]
Date: 1/24/02 3:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs;
Please lay off Microsoft. They have done far more good than
harm, and much more good than you can do by pursuing this action.
Let the market decide. The government is probably the worst way to
pick winners-and that is exactly what this action will
accomplish.
Sincerely;
Patrick L. McHargue
MTC-00020345
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:47am
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,
Thomas O'Neill
PO Box 689
Roseburg, OR 97470-0137
MTC-00020346
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,dennispowell@
earthlink.net@inetgw,do...
Date: 1/24/02 3:42am
Subject: Public comment submission RE:Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern Jan 23, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the United States v.
Microsoft antitrust case in its current form.
As someone who has been involved in the computing industry since
the late 80's, I have watched Microsoft rise to dominance with
concern for the longer term health of the industry as a whole. While
I have often found Microsoft's techniques distasteful and unethical,
my primary concern is that everyone involved concentrate their
efforts toward a solution better able to deal with future behavior,
not one that corrects the mistakes of the past.
Any remedy directed toward past events will be ineffective as
rendered due to the rapid pace of change in our industry today. With
an eye toward the future, I respectfully submit the following for
consideration:
Microsoft should be compelled to fully document and publish file
formats and application programming interfaces in a format without
restriction for public review. Compulsory RAND licenses allowing the
use of the formats will be made available to closed development
efforts regardless of size. Open development efforts would be able
to make use of the public documents without license provided that
the resulting code remain open. Publication of said standards should
be made in a timely manner in order to foster competition and
innovation among all parties involved. The above provisions, while
not precise enough for final rendered judgment, serve as a rough
framework intended to achieve a number of goals all contributing to
the longer term health of the industry in general and long term
benefit to its users.
Competing developers would be able to build applications better
able to inter-operate with Microsoft's own, thus enabling
competition for common applications on a number of platforms. The
average persons choice of computer is sharply limited today because
it is artificially difficult to develop viable alternatives. API and
file format inter-operability is necessary for this to change.
Microsoft's ability to "Embrace and Extend" open
standards would be sharply limited by the provisions outlined above.
Open standards are often developed either in an academic
environment, or through peer review. Use of said standards should
remain open. Closing them only benefits Microsoft.
The rapid growth of the Internet as we see it today is due to
the open standards upon which it is built. Another facet of the
internet that is worth consideration, at this point, is the fact
that it runs on a number of different platforms, including those
offered by Microsoft. If current behavior is allowed to continue,
this will change for the worse. We will end up with one company
controlling a very large portion of the Internet also in a position
to control its future direction. Given the relative youth of the
Internet today, I am not convinced that this is the best outcome.
Almost every computer working today regardless of vintage or
make is capable of performing the basic computing tasks most users
need, yet the latest Microsoft offerings demand the latest machines.
While I clearly recognize Microsoft's need to innovate and take
advantage of the latest technology, I also have concern over the
lack of alternatives able to make good use of the hardware already
available. Open data formats, and applications programming
interfaces will enable better solutions to common needs on existing
hardware. There is a lot of value in these types of solutions.
Longer term, the presence of these solutions also provide a powerful
incentive for future development to remain realistic in its hardware
demands.
In summary, my primary concern is with the way Microsoft has
leveraged its file formats and application programming interfaces to
build its business at the expense of everyone, including its own
customers. Addressing future behaviour, rather than correcting
problems of the past, takes best advantage of the fast pace of
technology today.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Doug Dingus
PO Box 30104
Portland, Oregon 97294
MTC-00020347
From: Scott Jaffa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please reinstate the order to split microsoft and and bar the
resulting companies from cooperation. Also force them to pay apple
computer a fee for every copy of windows sold.
Scott Jaffa
MTC-00020348
From: STRMN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The Proposed settlement (as referred in the media) seems comic.
I am definitely opposed to it.
Best Regards
Bjo-rn Stro-mns -
B. Stro-mns A.S.
[email protected] (STRMN)
MTC-00020349
From: Christopher Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Judment
As an European based consumer and small business I am very
concerned at the way that despite the well documented methods that
Microsoft used to lever itself into market dominance there is going
to be no real remedy. If this was the automotive industry or even in
the utilities steps would have been taken to sort out the anti
competitive practices and the theft of intellectual property. The
only time a small software house tried to get compensation from
Microsoft for the illegal use of their intellectual property was
when the Stac corporation sued Microsoft for bundling disk
compression in MS DOS 6.0. The outcome Stac won the day but as the
court did not award costs the cost of the case broke the company so
in essence it was an hollow victory. Microsoft has admitted to
tactics such as increasing the price of products to a company if
they find out any competing products are being used. It was this
last tactic that helped pushed Vobis and Escom into history.
Recently we had Microsoft posting cereal packets to Novell customers
and insinuating that the support would run out soon as far as I am
aware this case is still ongoing. The fact that Novell had just
announced the release of a new product did not seem to stop the
Microsoft marketing machine from trying to convince Novell customers
that Novell were leaving the network software market. From a users
point of view most of the Microsoft product line is woefully
inadequate with constant patching require to get it to work
correctly and once the product is stable it is dropped an a new more
glitzy product is introduced. Steve Balmer's statement that in time
everyone would be paying Microsoft for their Internet uploads and
downloads is a cause for concern as Microsoft does not own the
[[Page 26874]]
Internet so how can they charge for access to it. In the UK we had
the embarrassment of a site set up for the UK government only
allowing Microsoft Browsers access, little more than a method of
forcing people who needed to access that site to change not only
their browser ! but in some cases their platform and OS as well.
This last point has now been opened up to other browsers but it
still goes to show how Microsoft will try to further consolidate its
market dominance to reach the goal of a monopoly. Pricing in Europe
is a mess with the K paying the highest prices for Microsoft
products and no real reason being given for this, the new XBox is a
prime example made in Europe yet we will be paying 50% more for the
product than the Americans an Japanese. Consumers here in the UK did
look to the American courts to get Microsoft to play fair. With
standard oil, IBM and AT&T remedies were forced on the companies
to make them compete fairly yet it seems to view here that Microsoft
has placed itself above to law. Has access to the Gates mansion been
granted for tax assessment purposes yet? If you are still unsure of
the conduct of this company just read a Book called The Microsoft
Files it is reveting reading and goes a long way to explaining how
market dominance was achieved., or are the methods described in the
book standard American practices? For the sake of the little man in
the street just make sure that the Microsoft remedy is just and fair
to all parties and not a licence for Microsoft to carry on its quest
for world domination.
C H Owen
Shieldwell Computing
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020350
From: Wayne Fisher
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How can you sue a company for putting its own products in its
programs. Surely you wouldn't sue Pepsi for putting Pepsi in their
own cans, or sue Marlboro for putting their products in their own
packaging. Microsoft could not obviously put anybody else's internet
browser in their operating system. If you want to sue a company, SUE
AOL, for making such useless software, and buying out Netscape and
forcing their subscribers for using it. IF Microsoft were forced to
supply a bare bones Windows, then myself, and everyone I know (which
is a lot of people, being an IT manager.) would transfer the
products back into Windows. If I could, for some reason NOT use
Internet Explorer (which has to be, by far, the easiest, most secure
and reliable browser) I would never, ever use Netscape, but choose a
far superior browser than Netscape (which is not hard really!!)
called Opera.
My 5 cents.
MTC-00020351
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please consider a more stringent monitoring of Microsoft's
business ethics. Although it is partly hype, there ARE reasons why
MS are hated. They lie, steal and cheat, and *THIS* is the problem.
If that can be prevented, I have no objection to a large, ETHICAL
business.
Jeffery Lay,
Project Officer for Research Support Computing,
Faculty of Mathematics & Computing,
The Open University.
ICQ#6824096, SMS/GSM +447961404144 (Orange)
MTC-00020352
From: Robert Dickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
On the matter of the Microsoft settlement, I find the remedy
proposal as it stands a bad idea. To think that the US Government,
of which I am a taxpayer, will allow this company to remain
unpunished as a monopoly is appalling. Microsoft time and time again
shows itself unwilling to allow the market to choose. Using
ceaseless tactics to exclude competition is simply un-American in my
view.
It is my hope that this settlement does NOT become implemented
and will go back to the courts for a true and real remedy.
Sincerely,
Robert Dickson
MTC-00020353
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi. I'm just a guy sitting back reading the spins on the
Microsoft case, and it seems to me that common sense has never
entered into the situation. To me, what Microsoft has done / is
doing in terms of their marketing isn't right. It's kind of like
magic-pay attention to this hand, so you don't notice what the
other hand is doing. What I find difficult to believe is that my
government is falling for this. God forbid, that they see what's
going on, and are just turning a blind eye. If you were told you
could buy any car you want as long as it's a Ford Escort, I don't
think you'd go for it. Then if you were told that you had to pay
extra for things you didn't want, you might get upset, maybe mad.
Well this is just my $.02 worth. No one from your office reads these
things anyway.
Frustrated.
Jeff Roberts
Spokane, WA.
MTC-00020354
From: Adam Burrill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:01am
Subject: MS antitrust settlement
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 writing to express my dissatisfaction with the Justice
Department's settlement over the Microsoft antitrust case.
I am a computer professional who has worked with Microsoft
products for 9 years in support environments. I have been quite
appreciative of many Microsoft software products over the years
(particularly the improvements of Windows 95 and Windows NT over DOS
and the introduction of standard GUI interfaces on the PC platform
through MS office) but I am quite aware that Microsoft does not play
fair in the marketplace. The demise of quality competitors in many
markets, including the web browser market, word processing software
market, office suite market, operating system market and network
environment market; added to unfair licensing of operating systems
(requiring PC manufacturers to pay per computer sold rather than per
MS OS sold), bundling to eliminate competition (MS Office, Internet
Explorer, etc..), intentional bugs to prevent competitor's software
from working correctly (Netscape, OS/2, etc..) and a myriad of other
dishonest business tactics lead me to believe there will never be an
honest Microsoft as they exist today. (Despite the many good things
that led me to certify myself as an NT 4.0 Microsoft Certified
Systems Engineer and to support many of their products.)
I would encourage you to reconsider this settlement and move to
break up Microsoft so that we can restore competition to the
software market.
Thank you for your time.
Adam Burrill
Technology Consultant
PMB 737
1122 E Pike St.
Seattle, WA. 98122
MTC-00020355
From: CE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
In regards to the proposed Microsoft settlement, I do not
believe the current proposal provides adequate regulation to keep
Microsoft from smothering competition. Many businesses and products
have ceased to exist over the last two decades due to Microsoft's
business practices. Some examples include companies like Be (makers
of BeOS) and products like DR-DOS (currently owned by Caldera).
Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly,
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of thier actions,
with the threat of criminal penalties for non-compliance, is the
only remedy that I can believe will curtail them. The market must be
able to return to a state of competition.
Our economy is far too fragile, and our society too dependant on
computers to allow one company to control a monopolistic share of
the market.
Charlie Eidem
Rohnert Park, CA
MTC-00020356
From: Kevin Haidl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
[[Page 26875]]
I understand that the law regards my opinion as relevant at this
time. I am happy to state my opinion. I buy Microsoft products
because they provide enormous value to me. I have never regarded any
of their software distribution or legal practices as harmful to me
in the least. Microsoft has consistently delivered the best overall
value in mainstream consumer operating systems since the early
1990s.
Professionally, I do use other operating systems. I, unlike most
people who comment on this case, am not an unobjective partisan of
one OS or another. Each OS offers different values for different
niches. But Microsoft, as a company, has consistently outstripped
every competitor in serving the markets they target. Nobody can beat
their ability to balance the many values users want as they build a
single integrated product.
They've earned their success, their wealth, and their market
share by one means: delivering superior value.
Kevin Haidl
Internet Consultant
Vancouver, BC
Canada
MTC-00020357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00am
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,
Ed Michael
134 Hiawatha Lane
Dover, DE 19904-2484
MTC-00020358
From: Drew, Alan
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Why can't I buy a PC (A PC note, not a mac) without Microsoft
software installed? Why don't I have a choice?
frankly I don't care what you do in the settlement the whole
world knows thaat Microsoft is run by crooks and sharks sponsored by
crooks and sharks in government over the next few years, people wil
gradually realise that they *don't* have to pay the MS tax, it is
possible to do the same thing for free.
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information.
No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient, please
immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy
any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly
or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of
this message if you are not the intended recipient. CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP and each legal entity in the CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON or
CREDIT SUISSE ASSET MANAGEMENT business units of CREDIT SUISSE FIRST
BOSTON reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications
through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those
of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise
and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any
such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this
message is indicative only, is subject to change and does not
constitute an offer to deal at any price quoted. Any reference to
the terms of executed transactions should be treated as preliminary
only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
MTC-00020359
From: Charles Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since the Microsoft quasi-monopoly is already established, the
company should be required to publish their file formats and details
of their file systems.
Charles Johnson
Managing Director
Protean IT
MTC-00020360
From: P Howells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have just received Micro$ofts" latest Freedom to
Innovate newsletter, in which they complain about AOL's new lawsuit
against them. Since I dispise AOL even more than I dislike
Micro$oft, I am inclined to agree with Micro$oft: "This latest
legal move appears to be an attempt by AOL to once again retreat
from the rigors of competition to the safer confines of the
courtroom, where the company is clearly more comfortable."
Having said that, I also must say that the
"settlement" to which you are agreeing in the antitrust
case against Micro$oft is a case in which the DoJ has dropped it
pants, bent over, spread its cheeks, and said "insert whatever
you want as deeply as you want." It appears that the
"whatever" was a barbed-wire dildo. Unfortunately it is
really the taxpayers and consumers that are getting the shaft, not
the DoJ. I apologize if the graphic imagery of my metaphor is
disturbing, but it is the gentlest one that comes to mind.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to detail my
objections to the "settlement." Suffice it to say that
since the antitrust suit was filed, M$ has released *two* new
versions of Windows in which they have blatently incorporated an
application that mascerades as an operating system feature, Internet
Explorer. As I recall, the purpose of the suit was to get it out of
Windows...hello? is anyone home? It's still there! A browser has no
more business as an integral part of an operating system than a word
processor does, or porn web site, or Donkey Kong. Furthermore, your
lawsuit and "settlement" put the fear of God into them
so badly that they felt quite comfortable incorporating Messenger
Service and Netmeeting, two more applications, into Windows XP. The
competitive pressures that you've brought to bear are so intense
that Windows XP is actually more expensive than previous versions of
Windows.
They are going to donate a billion dollars worth of software?
Bah, I'm not impressed. A chump change tax write off. A billion
dollars worth of Windows XP will cost them between 5 and 10 million
dollars, if that much, and give them a $1 billion tax deduction. Not
to mention 5 million Windows users to add to their monopoly. Lovely.
Good work guys. Micr$oft thanks you.
Pete Howells
Reno, NV
[email protected]
PS: I am not a Macintosh or Linux user that is railing about
Micro$oft. My exclusive operating system is Windows XP. Not because
Windows is superior, but because the monopoly forces me to conform.
My work is with computers and without Windows I lose 90+% of my
potential customer base.
MTC-00020361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:05am
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,
Keith Knoff
517 W. Auburn
Bellefontaine, OH 43311-1101
MTC-00020362
From: David Chalmers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello there.
[[Page 26876]]
I have read reports of the Microsoft Anti-trust settlement, that
refer to a deal where Microsoft gets to donate fee computers and
software to schools and education establishments as part of their
reparations. I think most people, myself included would consider
this grossly unfair and contrary to natural justice.
Why should a company found guilty of monopoly and anti-
competitive practices be allowed to FURTHER entrench their monopoly,
by targetting one of the most influential markets for future
business. It will cost them a LOT less, as the software is nearly
free to them. It is grossly unfair on other vendors selling into the
education market (e.g. Apple Computer) as it gives Microsoft market
share they couldn't EVER buy otherwise, and only the most perverted
sense of justice would see it as anything other than a huge victory
for Microsoft and a capitulation by those seeking to curb unethical
practices.
I strongly urge those concerned to re-consider this settlement.
Regards
Dave Chalmers
Dave Chalmers, Applications Group Manager
[email protected]
Imaging Division,
http://www.vvl.co.uk
STMicroelectronics
TINA: 068 6162
33 Pinkhill, EDINBURGH
+44(0)131 336 6162 (direct)
EH12 7BF, UNITED KINGDOM :
+44(0)131 336 6001 (fax)
MTC-00020363
From: Jim Gottlieb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my opinion on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I am not related to any of the parties in the case
except that I am often forced to use Microsoft software in the
course of my business.
I believe that the proposed settlement is severely flawed. I
have personally observed Microsoft's illegal (as presented in the
Findings of Fact) behavior and the settlement proposed does nothing
to punish them for past abuses nor does it really give them
discouragement from further extending their monopoly and using that
monopoly to crush any and all competitors.
Armed with this knowledge that they can get away with anything,
they will now continue this behavior with impunity. I could spend
pages listing the companies they have set out to crush and have
largely been successful at. They systematically give away product
for free until other companies can no longer afford to stay in
business. Then note their recent hefty price increases for the
licenses for their products and be certain that this will continue
too.
Competition is always good for the consumer. Sure, I would love
for my company to have a monopoly in our line of business, but
that's not how the free market system works. Our competitors keep us
on our toes, forcing us to constantly innovate and to keep our
prices in line. We don't try to kill our competition; we believe in
fair play. Microsoft clearly does not, and they are not satisfied
with a monopoly in the desktop computer market but are working
towards their goal of "Windows Everywhere".
Imagine if all consumer electronics products were as buggy as
Microsoft Windows. Despite what Microsoft would like you to believe,
Microsoft has not been good for the American consumer. We need real
competition in this market and at this point only the U.S.
Government can effect this.
At the very least, force Microsoft to open their file formats.
They use this not only to squeeze their competitors but to force
users to constantly upgrade to newer versions of their product.
Imagine if the car you bought two years ago was made incompatible
with today's gasoline so you were forced to trade it in. This is
what Microsoft does.
I am not knowledgeable enough to suggest many remedies, but I
have read many good ideas in magazines and newspapers written by
experts in the computer industry and I urge you to listen to them.
Thank you for listening.
MTC-00020364
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I find it unacceptable that the Dept. of Justice has been
bullied and politicised into this mediocre settlement. Therefore I
wish to add my name to any list/petition that reaffirms the original
requirement that Microsoft should be split. Jackson was right,
though his conduct was questionable. Without a major change to
restrict Microsoft's leverage on the computer industry, the entire
world will suffer poor quality, unchallenged products sold by a
monopoly that simply doesn't care about anything other than profit.
Regards
Michael Henry
MTC-00020365
From: Matt Hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be clear that this is a personal e-mail and therefore
does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
I wish to express strong concern over this revised settlement
between yourselves and Microsoft. I agree with many who feel that
many of the statements made within the settlement are insufficiently
stringent to make them effective.
Taking the example of the invokation of Microsoft Middleware:
"the Windows Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft
Middleware Product in any instance in which: 1. that Microsoft
Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in inter-
operating with a server maintained by Microsoft..."
Though a welcome initiative, and though it does specifically
exclude web browsers from this context, the detail through this and
subsequent paragraphs exposes many simple means by which, for
example, microsoft can force the use of its own e-mail client,
authentication services etc... Particularly of note in providing
these loopholes are the above exclusion and the active-x related
exclusion. On the whole, use of active-x to access such services
achieves slick-looking integration, not extra functionality. Many
people, including myself choose to avoid microsoft applications
providing these services, both through personal preference and
through concern over the number of serious security vulnerabilities
that have been exposed in these products over the past few years.
Allowing Microsoft to take this route may well result in a similar
situation to the Internet Explorer v Netscape saga for a host of
other services.
Yours sincerely
Matt Hammond
Graduate Engineer, BBC Research and Development,
Tadworth, Surrey.
MTC-00020366
From: Stephen Borrill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've been following the Microsoft (MS) vs DoJ case since the
start (many years ago) and agreed with Judge Jackson's conclusions
and proposed remedies. MS indeed have a monopoly and have
demonstrably proved that they will defend and strengthen that
monopoly rigourously. Therefore, I believe that the proposed
settlement is and astoundingly accomodating in favour of MS. The
Middleware clauses are weak and full of bizarre pro-MS conditions
(such as "any replacement middleware should be of similar size
and shape to the MS version"). It was proved during the trial
that IE was removable and Windows would still function
(contradicting what MS alleged), yet the settlement allows IE to
merely be hidden from the user, but invoked at any time for the
purposes of communicating with MS servers or when alternatives do
not implement certain heavily proprietary "standards"
such as ActiveX in a MS-designated fashion.
The restriction of the protocol licencing clause to protocols
which aren't used for remote administration is extremely worrying.
MS could successfully argue that fundament protocols such as CIFS/
SMB and RDP can be used for remote administration and thus should be
excluded from disclosure.
Finally, the complete removal of the clean-room technical
disclosure practise proposed by Judge Jackson in favour of a clause
which explicitly allows MS to opt out on the basis of some notional
potential security compromise (section J 1), is a massive backwards
step and provides no consumer protection. This is made all the more
insulting because of the proprietary non-disclosed extensions to
Kerboros in Windows 2000. In conclusion, I believe the proposed
settlement to be heavily skewed in favour of Microsoft and as such
it should be rejected. -
Dr Stephen Borrill
Director, Precedence Technologies Ltd
MTC-00020367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 26877]]
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,
Sheri Muckey
7010 hwy 97 N
Terrebonne, OR 97760
MTC-00020368
From: Fred McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:15am
Subject: Microsoft vs the Citizens of American
It appalls me to even be writing this letter. But I feel that it
is a necessity, due to the mockery that Microsoft is making of the
American Justice System. After being found guilty of being a
monopoly, the DOJ has decided to let Microsoft off with no more than
a slap on the wrist. The present judgement has no teeth. And
Microsoft continues to buy opinions. Even recently, I received a
phone call from a Microsoft representative on a champaign to flood
this email box with pro Microsoft opinions.
I am an engineer and have been working in the computers industry
for more than ten years. I started just before Microsoft began to be
a player in this industry and I admit that Microsoft has played a
significant role in creating the industry that I am in. The problem
is that it is now trying to control this industry. It is killing off
competition and stifling innovation. Microsoft claims to innovate,
but I have seen Nothing new that Microsoft has created that isn't a
Microsoft spin of someone else's idea. One by one I have watched
company that have innovated and create fresh new product die off due
to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. They have copied and
undersold, made applications required by calling them part of the
operating system and not letting them be uninstalled.
To me is just about a ridiculous to have such a meaningless
judge against Microsoft as it would be leave Osma Bin Laden alive,
in power with his terrorist cells and the Taliban intact and tell
him that he did a bad thing bombing America and we aren't ever going
to give him a Visa now. Microsoft has continue to demonstrate it's
contempt and disregard for the fair competition in the industry by
continuing to Kill Netscape Plug-ins, require Passport for upgrades
and even more tightly tie the Desktop to his back-end Server so that
you almost have no choice but to choose a total Microsoft solution.
Now that the back-end server market has secured its march on to
monopoly, the Database market is next. The next version of the
server will require Microsoft Database, and like the Browser wars,
if you're going to have to buy Microsoft's Database with their
server, then it will be a hard justification to buy other 3rd party
database servers, especially since they won't run as well since they
are given inferior API calls by Microsoft. I am a believer in the
free market enterprise and believe that Microsoft is entitled to the
all money that they have made. After all I believe that for
Microsoft, this is more about power and control than money. I
believe that the most fair way to guarantee increased competition
and new innovation is to break Microsoft into two separate
companies. Let Microsoft sell off half the company and keep the
money from the sale. But make the two companies split between the
Desktop
Operating System and the Server Operating System Markets. All
Desktop only applications go with the Desktop company and all
Software requiring a server go with the Servers Company. Neither
company can have a interest in the other company in any way and
neither company can re-enter the other platform operating system
market for ten years. API calls can be sold, but all API must be
open at the same price to any company that wants to buy them. Since
the two companies no longer have an vertical monopoly by having both
the server and desktop markets, they will be encouraged to build
relationships with other companies in order to survive.
Also define for the new Microsoft Desktop company, that an
operation system is only the basic software that produces a user
interface to hardware devices. Only applications that are basic
desktop utilities can be bundled with the operating system as non
removable software. Applications such as email clients, servers os
clients, web browsers, news readers and not required for a Desktop
Operating system to function and should be a users choice. All
existing Microsoft Desktop OS should be version frozen and the next
released version of the Desktop OS should allow all the Applications
to be uninstalled. They can be sold seperately or bundled free, but
they must be uninstallable so that the applications will not
interfere with a competitors application if a user chooses to
install it. Most all other Desktop operating systems allow this
outside of Microsoft. There is NO engineering or software reason
that these applications are required outside that fact that
Microsoft designed them to be un-installable. Due to security
concerns and the fact that I do not need to use certain pieces of
Microsoft's Software, I have to hack the Microsoft Operating system
to delete certain files that Microsoft claim's are required. They
are not user un-installable, but after fooling the operating system
long enough to delete them, I have eliminated security
vulnerabilities, and Windows still runs fine, which proves that they
are not really required.
If Microsoft really does know how to innovate and are as
creative as they claim, then with it's talents and assets split then
it should have no problem continuing to produce orginal software.
But with open APIs and an interest in broading the market since
their is not longer a finanical advantage in vertical monopoly, both
new companies will be encourged working with other desktop operating
systems and other Server back-ends.
Give us in America a choice. DR Dos is Dead, Vines is dead,
Netscape is almost dead and has filed their own lawsuit. Let Novell,
Macintosh, Lindows, Roxio and other survive. Let them compete on an
equal playing field.
MTC-00020369
From: s.berens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:18am
Subject: "The Tunney Act. Microsoft Settelment
Rejection"
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns
over the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am of the opinion that it
does not adequately address and prohibit the anti-competitive
actions of Microsoft against it's competitors or OEM's and it fails
to take into account alternate "open source" operating
systems. I urge you to reconsider and rewrite the proposed
settlement.
MTC-00020370
From: Joseph Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally use Microsoft. I'm satisfied with their products.
They work for me. They enable me to be productive. I'm not a
computer geek therefore I have no outrage against Microsoft. I'm not
interested in any other software that Netscape would like to
publish.
I do have a MAJOR PROBLEM with the US Government, continually
hounding MS for the benefit of Netscape, a company that lost their
edge early in the browser wars due to sloppy management and
presumption of market share they couldn't maintain through
innovation. I object to the legislative effort of elected officials
mining the pockets of large companies who have MADE THIS COUNTRY
PRODUCTIVE through innovative software development and acceptance of
risk in the market place!
The federal and state governments made billions from the tobacco
prosecution. That money was supposed to go toward health care for
children. Politicians squandered that money, using it for everything
other than children's healthcare.
The lawyers are the only ones that benefit from these
governmental fiasco's. This governmental vendetta is only to
persecute a successful company...easy money that will be wasted by
politicians!
Anyone who owns a company or earns a salary or wages... the
government already is taking more than they need. Your company and
your money is at risk. BTW, the liberals already think all the money
is their money.
Do not delay the scheduled tax reductions!
Leave Micorsoft alone.
Joseph Murphy
Leavenworth, KS
[[Page 26878]]
MTC-00020371
From: Patrick Baltz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
While the proposed final judgement in the Microsoft antitrust
case does in general not provide an adequate remedy to Microsoft's
abuses, I would like to point out several parts of the judgement
that are inadequate. In section III.D, it states that APIs and
documentation shall, approximately a year after the release of
Windows XP, be provided when a Windows Operating System Product has
been distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers. This allows
Microsoft to sidestep this requirement through numbers while
providing a competitive advantage to develop and market Microsoft
Middleware Products and other Microsoft applications before ISVs
have even been given access to the APIs and documentation. I would
suggest that the APIs and documentation be made available to ISVs at
the same time it is made available to Microsoft's own middleware and
application development groups. In addition, Microsoft should be
required to keep APIs and documenation updated for independent
software developers, as updated APIs and documentation are made
available for Microsoft's own internal middleware and application
developers.
One other issue that the judgement provides no remedy for is the
bundling of Microsoft applications and middleware with the Windows
Operating System itself. Bundling of applications such as Internet
Explorer, Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, and future versions
of these programs provides a competitive advantage to Microsoft that
puts competitors at a serious disadvantage for adoption of their
competing products. These applications should not be bundled with
the Windows Operating System itself, but they should instead be made
availble to consumers independently. This should not however keep
non-Microsoft vendors from bundling Microsoft applications with
their product in addition to the Windows Operating System if they
wish.
Sincerely,
Patrick Baltz
MTC-00020372
From: Doug Magnoli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am very concerned about what I've read of the Proposed Final
Judgement (PFJ) of the Microsoft anti-trust suit. As written, the
Judgement would allow Microsoft to continue to use restrictive
licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from running on
Windows. This hurts the entire Open Source community, and since Open
Source applications are, therefore, predominantly used by competing
operating systems, it hurts the users of those systems.
In addition to this, I believe that strong language is needed in
the Judgement to prevent Microsoft from continuing to discriminate
against small Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). In short,
Microsoft continues to harm those elements of the US information
industry that are exactly what built this country. We need
-more- OEMs, not fewer. We need to encourage OEMs to
stay in business, not to help Microsoft to lay them to rest.
As written, the PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any
OEM that ships personal computers with a competing operating system
and without Windows. This is exactly the opposite of what, in my
opinion, needs to be done. OEMs need to be encouraged to ship
competing operating systems-this is what keeps a market open
and what offers options to consumers.
I truly hope the PFJ will not be accepted and that Microsoft
will face some very strong regulating in the future.
Sincerely,
Douglas E. Magnoli
Pleasanton, CA
MTC-00020373
From: Douglas Mitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Dept,
I think the government is wrong in settling with Microsoft.
After all this is the justice department I am writing, so justice
not expedience should be pursued.
At hand is not just Windows OS, but all the other products that
Microsoft sells and utilized their advantage as the OS provider for
Intel machines to defeat or bankrupt the competition in many 3rd
party programs. To function in today1s world and exchange files, one
must have Microsoft Software no matter what platform-Wintel or
Mac. That is a monopoly that hinders competition and better
products. What about all the companies that went under and do not
have the financial resources because they are bankrupt now due to
anti-competitive practices of Microsoft? Where is there justice.
They played fair, but they lost to an unfair player: Microsoft. The
first clue that the settlement is bad is does Microsoft like it.
First of all they are declared a monopoly by the justice department.
They should be reorganized and assessed punitive damages to the
companies damaged by their illegal activities to ensure their
arrival at the status of monopoly. Judge Thomas Penfield was
right-Microsoft needs to be broken up. Their OS, Internet
Software, and their productivity programs must become independent
and unrelated entities.
This is a U.S. Company and needs to be brought to justice by the
U.S. Their monopolistic practices are felt in all countries that
have access to technology.
Justice should reconsider and give Microsoft a reason not to
function the way they do. Moreover, they have never self-policed nor
submitted to injunctions of any kind from the government.
There is more to add, but I will leave it at that.
Sincerely,
Doug Mitts
MTC-00020374
From: Kevin Hine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As somebody that will be affected by the outcome of the ongoing
litigation between the US and Microsoft I have watched the ebb and
flow very closely. Considering the superb performance of the US's
team during the District Court and Appellate phase I am demoralised
at the current state of the proposed agreement between Microsoft and
the US. Feel that the argument for a stronger negotiating position
for the US has been well won, but completely unused.
Therefore, I do not feel that the proposed agreement will
satisfactorily protect (1) US consumers nor International consumers.
Yours Sincerely,
Kevin Hine
85 Octavia Close
Mitcham
Surrey CR4 4BZ
Tel: +44 (0) 208 646 5995
MTC-00020375
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:25am
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,
James Saulsbury
2551 Edgerock Rd.
none
Reno, NV 89509
MTC-00020376
From: Chris Carlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does not go far enough. Microsoft has
harmed consumers for many years and will continue to do so. It's
activities since the trials began hilight the fact that they have no
intention of backing off and playing fair.
My solution: revoke some of their intellectual proprty rights.
They can't use their intellectual property to gain the upper hand if
they don't have a monopoly on said property.
The settlement, as is, stinks.
Chris Carlin
[[Page 26879]]
MTC-00020377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:20am
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,
Beth Ann Richards
1323 Church Street
Indiana, PA 15701
MTC-00020378
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:21am
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,
Judith Stroman
1823-C Tenth Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96816-2927
MTC-00020379
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:17am
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 corlett
p.o. box 2455
florence, , OR 97439
MTC-00020380
From: Connie Bieber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:29am
Subject: let our people go!
Dear Sirs:
It is time to end the "witch hunt" on Micro Soft.
They are being punished for their success and it has gone on long
enough.
Respectfully,
Connie Bieber
Davenport, Iowa 52806
[email protected]
MTC-00020381
From: lho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
Please ensure that Microsoft systems will accept input and
provide output to other programs and systems.
This is in my opinion not agreed to in the settlement. To let
any monopoly deny interoperability by defining own formats will
seriously hinder communication, as lots of people will be unable to
buy unneccessarily expensive software. Internet stands poised to
open an age of communication, open exchange of ideas to anybody,
from anybody, with little hindrance from poverty, position, race,
sex or religion.
I am not sure that the American people will benefit from
allowing Microsoft unhindered continue it's monopolistic practise.
A pity it will be, if the rest of the world are able to freely
communicate, while the free world's techological locomotive are
derailed in a dark tunnel of monetary and legal censorship.
Sincerly yours,
Lars Hornfelt.
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020382
From: Christopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea. I agree with most
of the issues in http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
Christopher Palow
Miami, Fl
MTC-00020383
From: Patty Lamoreaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:30am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please stop this economically-draining witch-hunt.
I am fed up with this unfounded attack on a healthy and vital
company in a capitalistic society. This is suppose to be a free-
enterprise system. Every body wants to get paid or thinks they are
owed something that they haven't worked for these days. What is
wrong with this picture? We are heading down the wrong paths
straight toward a socialist-welfare state. Let's spend our resources
wisely.
MTC-00020384
From: Jerry Roahrig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
After careful consideration of the facts, I think that the
proposed settlement with Microsoft is preposterous. The Department
of Justice under George W. Bush has simply buckled to the interests
of BIG business. Where is the justice?
Over the years Microsoft's business practices have not been just
overly agressive. They have been outright criminal. Microsoft has
continually (and illegally) crushed competition and stiffled
innovation by parlaying their monoploy in operating systems to make
themselves the only game in town, not only in operating systems, but
increasingly in internet browsers, email programs, productivity
software, etc.
Because of its unscurpulous practices, Microsoft controls the
desktop PC market and is pushing to make the Internet its sole
domain as well. Thanks to your flaccid efforts at pursuing justice,
that day is now in the closer than ever. Even more importantly
however, once again, as is so typical in the US legal system, a
wealthy defendant has apparently purchased the verdict. The lesson
learned from this is that, if you're going to be a criminal, be a
very successful criminal. Then you won't have to actually pay for
your crimes.
Jerry Roahrig
732 Golfview Drive
Lexington, KY 40504
[email protected]
MTC-00020385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:26am
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
[[Page 26880]]
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,
Jo Long
1512 Wildwood Drive
Ardmore, OK 73401
MTC-00020386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:27am
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,
Nels Paget
3031 Sahalee De W.
Sammamish, WA 98074
MTC-00020387
From: Steve Farrall
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 4:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I'd just like to say that as a consumer and web developer for
many years my colleagues and I have favoured Microsoft's Internet
Explorer from it's very early days.
I have always been free to download and install Netscape
Navigator, as indeed I have on several occasions.
My response has always been to return to Internet Explorer
because it's a more solid, user friendly product that is backed up
by a first class support network and development framework.
I believe that if Navigator was better then people would have
stuck with it. Unfortunately the writers did not manage to innovate
quickly enough to capture the attention of the end user and as such
Microsoft have gained the majority of the market share. This is
definitely a good thing as it is encouraging e-Commerce and e-
Business to grow over the web at a fast rate. Without Internet
Explorer and Microsoft the Internet would be a much less popular
place.
Thanks for reading my thoughts on this matter.
Regards
Steve Farrall
MTC-00020388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:31am
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,
Baxter Stinson
11277 SW 72nd Avenue
Ocala, FL 34476-3911
MTC-00020389
From: peter piper
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 3:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
peter piper
932 da st.
Alb, NM 87111
January 24, 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,
poop
MTC-00020390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Goverment's proposed judgment against Microsoft is
not in the public interest because it is inadequate to remedy the
issues raised in the Government's complaint against the company, and
does little to address some of the most serious aspects of the
company's anti-competitive behavior. In the interest of brevity, I
will limit my comments to what I see as the most serious weaknesses
in the proposed judgment.
1. Predatory pricing in the form of bundling
Microsoft's attempt to destroy Netscape by giving away a product
similar to Netscape's web browser, as mentioned in the Government's
complaint against Microsoft, is only one instance of a pattern of
anti-competitive behavior on Microsoft's part. Microsoft pushes
predatory pricing to an extreme by bundling with each release of
Windows various application programs which are by no means necessary
for the operation of Windows-i.e. it drops the price of these
applications to zero. The only rational explanation for Microsoft's
willingness to give away this software, which must cost the company
a fair amount to develop and maintain, is that by driving all
competition out of business it will eventually be able to raise
prices almost without limit. The company's current cash position,
and the growth of its available cash (estimated to be over a billion
dollars a month), is so large that it can easily continue
underpricing (through bundling) even the strongest competitors
indefinitely. Antitrust laws were passed to prevent exactly this
kind of behavior. The Government's proposed judgment does not
address this issue. Even more worrisome is Microsoft's gradual
encroachment into the computer hardware business. So far its
business has been almost entirely software, but the company could
easily leverage its Windows monopoly to take over the personal
computer hardware market simply by modifying Windows not to work as
well with any competitor's computers. Nothing in the proposed
judgment would prevent this. (Microsoft is alleged to have played a
similar trick by modifying an earlier version of Windows not to work
correctly with a competitor's underlying DOS operating system.)
2. Use of Windows APIs with other operating systems
The Government's complaint prominently mentions the application
software barrier to entry for operating systems, but the proposed
judgment does not address this issue. A remedy would be to
explicitly prohibit Microsoft from acting against anyone who
provides an alternative operating system on which Windows
applications can run, i.e. an operating system which provides the
same APIs as Windows.
3. Open source software as a potential competitor to Microsoft
The wording of section III.J.2 seems almost specifically
designed to prevent any open source software from competing with
[[Page 26881]]
Microsoft products, even though the open source software movement is
one of the most promising developments and appears to be one of the
few serious contenders as a Microsoft competitor. Since most open
source software is available either free or at a very low cost,
customers benefit from the availability of open source alternatives
to Microsoft products.
4. Publishing of Windows operating system APIs
Section III.D of the proposed judgment requires Microsoft to
publish APIs used by Microsoft Middleware, but makes no mention of
other Windows APIs, in particular the operating system APIs
("system calls"). These are not currently published for
Windows NT or Windows 2000, although equivalent APIs are published
by most other operating system vendors. Microsoft claims that
software developers do not need this level of detail because they
should be using the published "Win32" API instead.
However, there is ongoing suspicion that Microsoft application
software has an advantage over competing software because it has
access to the more powerful operating system functionality, rather
than being limited to the functions provided by the Win32 API. A
remedy would be to require Microsoft to publish the operating system
APIs. Furthermore, other APIs which are currently published could be
changed in future releases of Windows and might then become secret,
thus cutting off the ability of competitors to sell applications
that depend on the corresponding functionality. A remedy would be to
require Microsoft to publish all APIs which are used by any
Microsoft applications to perform any Windows function.
5. Description of file formats
Microsoft exploits its Windows monopoly to gain a monopoly in
word processing and other "office productivity" software
products by keeping secret the description of files created by its
software. In particular, the distribution of text documents in
Microsoft Word form is so common that many people naively refer to
it as a "standard", even though the file format is not
published and has never been sanctioned by any standards body. The
effect is to require many people to buy not only Windows but also
Microsoft Word just so they can read documents sent to them by other
people. The result is that Microsoft's operating system monopoly
allows it to monopolize the word processing business as well. A
remedy would be to require Microsoft to publish the technical
specifications of the file formats used by Microsoft Word and any
similar products.
6. Definition of operating system
In defending its anti-competitive behavior regarding
applications software, Microsoft plays word games by defining
"operating system" to include more and more application
software. The company has even tried to present its web browser as a
necessary part of an operating system-an absurd claim, since
operating systems preceded web browsers by decades. Microsoft can
circumvent the sections of the proposed judgment regarding
middleware simply by defining this as part of the operating system.
7. No punishment for violating the law
It is very disappointing that the proposed judgment imposes no
penalties on Microsoft for its past violations of antitrust law. The
unmistakable message is that crime pays; the worst that happens is
that committing the same crime in the future becomes a bit more
difficult, and even that only after years of delay.
Respectfully,
Steven Tepper
550 Ashton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020391
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:35am
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,
JOHN JOHN
3354 N. Oconto Ave.
Chicago, IL 60634
MTC-00020392
From: Regina Hoff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/24/02 3:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regina Hoff
34 El Cerrito Dr.
Chico, CA 95973
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars,
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Regina Hoff
MTC-00020393
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:41am
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,
Marie Viens
806 Frederick Street #2
Hagerstown, MD 21740
MTC-00020394
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:43am
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
[[Page 26882]]
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,
Joseph Hussey
3354 N. Oconto Ave.
Chicago, IL 60634
MTC-00020395
From: WonderPaint
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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.
The current settlement proposal has numerous holes that will
allow Microsoft to continue its monopolistic practices.
Please reconsider the proposal before implementing.
Cordially,
James Shofstall
Carterville, Illinois
MTC-00020396
From: Gervase Markham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm not impressed. The remedy proposed is in no way proportional
to the behaviour for which it should compensate. Microsoft knows
this, because their monopolistic practices are continuing-for
example, in the case of media players and instant messaging clients.
Gerv
MTC-00020397
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:46am
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,
Susan Hussey
3354 N. Oconto Ave.
Chicago, IL 60634
MTC-00020398
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:36am
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,
JOHN Hussey
3354 N. Oconto Ave.
Chicago, IL 60634
MTC-00020399
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:44am
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,
Dawn Hendricks
PO Box 453
Council, ID 83612-0453
MTC-00020400
From: Mike Hitchcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is disgracefull and
brings the American system of justice into disrepute. Anyone with an
ounce of wisdom can see that Microsoft is guilty of malpractice over
many years and the settlement should constrain Microsoft from such
abuse of their powerful position in the future.
Mike Hitchcock in Cheltenham, United Kingdom
MTC-00020401
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:56am
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,
Ann Addison
13 Archdale Road
Columbia, SC 29209-2227
MTC-00020402
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:51am
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.
[[Page 26883]]
Sincerely,
David Flatray
212 NE Ninth St.
Abilene, KS 67410-2222
MTC-00020403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:58am
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,
REGG MCHUGH
91-641 LAUKONA LOOP
EWA BEACH, HI 96706
MTC-00020404
From: CZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I just wanted to have one more point go against Microsoft. They
have killed off so many great projects, programs, technologies and
entire companies using their strong arm tactics. They are a disease
to the computer industry, a digital anthrax.
I've spoken with numerous people (clients/friends/etc) that have
said they would use competing products if they could, but because of
the control Microsoft has on how some technologies work (among other
reasons), they can't.
I'll give you an instance of a problem I have regarding one of
their products. I have my default browser set to Omniweb, a
beautiful browser native only to MacOS X. However, when I choose a
link in AOL Instant Messenger or many other places, Internet
Explorer comes up. One might tell me to delete IE if I didn't like
it, but I can't. I have to keep it around for those web pages that
aren't viewable in anything else but IE, and unfortunately there are
many. So even when I choose a competing product, I still get stuck
with Microsoft. Is this really providing choice to the consumer? I'd
say no.
Microsoft's settlement is not only a joke, but an insult. Even
if they were to give $1 Billion in cash (instead of software/etc) to
schools, it would not make up for the damage they have done. I agree
100% with Judge Jackson's ruling to split up the company, in fact, I
think it should have gone beyond that. Microsoft's power needs to be
limited so they cannot break the law again. I believe the only way
to accomplish this is to break them up into 2 pieces, perhaps more.
Even then there should be rules so the new parts don't collaborate
in ways that would undermine the purpose of breaking them up.
Thank you for your time,
Chad Kay
MTC-00020405
From: Calum Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this is where I can comment upon the legal settlement
of the anti-trust case between the DOJ and Microsoft.
My comment is this:
Given the extent to which Microsoft has behaved unlawfully, is
the "punishment" really in proportion to the degree of
law-breaking? Of course not. Will the settlement prevent Microsoft
from gaining entry into other markets by exerting its monopoly of
the operating system market? Of course not. By bundling extra
"reebies" (although the price of its OS has jumped
significantly) into its operating system it can enter any software
market it sees fit, and still "massage" its operating
system into running its own software better.
In my opinion, the only remedy is to create "Chinese
walls" between the operating system kernel, the
browser+windowing system, and the applications. This effectively
creates 3 sub-companies within Microsoft, but avoids the
embarrassment for Microsoft of being "split up". All
technical and strategic communication between those three groups
must be in the public domain, giving software companies a level
playing field to develop software and components for the operating
system. Monitors must be put in place with access to every
communication between the groups, and judge the relevance of these
communications to third parties.
My other opinion is this: I don't think the American legal
system is up to the job of dealing justice to Microsoft, especially
since there seems to be some "lobbying" to Capitol Hill.
I don't think international opinion of the American justice system
is particularly high.
Calum
MTC-00020406
From: Nicholas Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Morning,
Don't know if my opinion weighs in any way, me being European
and all. However, I do feel that the outcome of this case will
directly affect me. I really don't think that the remedies as agreed
will change the competive landscape one iota. The opening of the
API's has been written so that only for-profit companies can access
them, which directly stops them being used in any open-source
solution. As Microsoft deem open-source in general and Linux in
particular as "Threat number 1", this remedy is paltry
at best. Giving $1billion of restored computers and software to
needy schools is a way of leveraging Microsoft into a market that
they weren't previously the incumbant. At the very least, they
should hand over the money and let the schools decide what to do
with it, what to buy and what OS to run.
N Murphy
Nicholas Morrissy-Murphy
Senior Software Engineer
WBT Systems
Block 2, Harcourt Centre,
Harcourt St,
Dublin 2,
Ireland
www.wbtsystems.com
MTC-00020407
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:08am
Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Louise N. Deveney
1610 Islamorada Blvd. A64
Punta Gorda, FL 33955
(941) 637-4628
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today to congratulate you on the settlement that
was reached with Microsoft in the antitrust case. Stand firm behind
this settlement and do not allow for another day of legal action at
the federal level. Microsoft is one of Americas??? most important
companies and a very large employer. This company has spent enough
time in court.
The settlement is fair and equitable. It gives Microsoft???s
competition ample room to maneuver, and does so by broad, strong
impositions on Microsoft, such as universal licensing agreements for
hardware makers, contingent only on bulk sales, and limitations on
contracts that guarantee a certain percentage of software sold.
Regrettably, opponents of the settlement portray this agreement
as a concession to Microsoft. This portrayal is wrong. This
settlement is very thorough and will require Microsoft to share more
intellectual property information with competing companies than has
ever been given out by a software company before. After three years
in court, having spent millions of dollars and countless man-hours,
Microsoft deserves to be let alone, especially since a good
settlement is on the table.
Your work on behalf of the settlement and ending this case is
greatly appreciated by many Americans. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Louise N. Deveney
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020408
From: Paul Klouda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is undoubtedly the best way to move
forward, way too much
[[Page 26884]]
time, energy and dollars have already been spemt on this case and
further prolonging the case with litigation is unnecessary. It's
incredibly unfortunate that 9 states have decided that they know
better than the Federal Govt as well as consumers and business who
continue to buy Microsoft products not because they are being forced
to but because they want to
MTC-00020409
From: John R. Diedrichs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a TURKEY!
If the government really wants to end Microsoft's monopoly, why
doesn't it simply stop accepting correspondence in Microsoft's
"secret" proprietary file formats? If the US government
simply declared that it will no longer accept any email attachments
in .DOC, .XLS, or .PPT format, people would learn very quickly how
to use the "Save As" function. The chief barrier to the
adoption of alternative software (ie: compatibility) would be
removed, and the monopoly would crumble quite rapidly.
In short, the US/DOJ are being hypocritical, if not duplicitous!
How can you claim to be "fighting" this monopoly while
you simultaneously REINFORCE it by your use of Microsoft file
formats for data storage and communication?! Don't the terms
"transparency in government" or "freedom of
information" mean anything? The term "Microsoft
Tax" becomes much more than a metaphore when government
documents are stored and transmitted in proprietary formats! http://
www.osopinion.com/Opinions/JohnDiedrichs/JohnDiedrichs1.html
Please scrap this so-called "settlement" and DO THE
RIGHT THING!
Sincerely,
John R. Diedrichs
2804 Walnut
Cedar Falls, IA 50613
MTC-00020410
From: Geoffe Elias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Geoffe Elias)
To the US Department of Justice,
I have read the proposed settlement between the Justice
Department and Microsoft Corporation. I believe that such a
settlement not only fails to stifle the business practices that have
brought Microsoft to court in the first place, but also creates a
dangerous precedent in which in the future, companies like Microsoft
may be allowed to use their dominant positions in industry to shut
out competition.
I have been a Microsoft User since Windows 3.11. It was during
sophomore year in High School, that I got a computer to use for my
schoolwork and computer game play. This was the year 1992.
Now it is 10 years later in 2002. During those past 10 years, I
have found that being a customer of Microsoft had been unnecessarily
expensive. How? 2 reasons: As a customer, I have had to constantly
upgrade to keep my computer able to play current software, and in
the case of MS Office, to maintain file compatibility with other
people using MS Office.
The other reason is that Computer makers will always include the
latest version of Windows in their products without providing the
consumer a choice in Operating Systems from other companies.
Upgrade Cycle:
I had started with Windows 3.11. From then on, I have purchased
boxed copies of Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME. In terms of
MS Office, I have purchased Office 95, Office 97, and Office XP. In
the case of the operating system, I worry that support of previous
versions of the operating system will cease as Microsoft lends its
support and focus on the latest operating system (currently Windows
XP). In the case of MS Office, file formats written in MS Office
change between each release of MS Office. Thus, I feel pressure to
upgrade to the latest version of MS Office in order to maintain file
compatibility with my fellow students.
As Microsoft proponents have explained, it is important to have
industry standards such as file standards (standards: a common set
of rules by which to design a file so that devices or applications
following such rules will be able to successfully interact with such
a file). Yet, Microsoft uses *proprietary* standards where those
rules are hidden from the public. Thus, only Microsoft applications
can use this secret standard and also, Microsoft is able to use
their dominant position in industry to push their standards as the
only standard available for use.
**It would be nice if such standards were public so that any
company can make software for files written with such public
standards . . .
FORFEITURE OF CHOICE
MS Windows is installed on every new computer built by a
computer company whether the consumer wishes it or not. For example,
I had bought a new laptop computer from Dell (Dell Corporation). At
the time, the only choices for operating systems to be installed in
that computer were either Microsoft Windows 2000 or Microsoft
Windows ME. It is interesting to note that the choice to buy a
laptop without any operating system installed was absent. Thus, as a
consumer buying from Dell Corp. the choices were limited to: buying
a computer with Microsoft Windows installed, or buying no computer
at all.
Due to what I see as inherent instability, lack of control, and
bloat (excessive programming code that makes a program run slower)
of Microsoft Windows design, I decided to switch to Linux. However,
as a Linux user, if I want to install new hardware (such as a TV
Card, Sound Card, etc) into my desktop computer, I must first do
research to see if the open source (public) community has created
drivers (software designed to make a piece of hardware work under a
given operating system) and applications (software designed to allow
for the use of the given hardware) for that piece of add-on
hardware. The fact is that a significant number of companies only
provide driver and software support for only Microsoft. This
condition in the marketplace where there is little hardware vendor
support for operating systems besides those of Microsoft provides
another unnecessary pressure to consumers to use Microsoft products.
I realize that this letter only provides complaints without
proposing solutions. However, I feel that the current settlement
does little to change the business practices that have led to a lack
of choice for consumes regarding their software solutions.
I would also like to point out that any solution that requires
an overseer (a group or person to look over the future business
practices of Microsoft and make corrections as necessary) would be
an abrogation of responsibility by the US Department of Justice in
dealing with the problems that Microsoft's business practices have
created. Any solution that is made must itself prevent future
attempts by Microsoft to use their dominant position in industry to
lessen competition. An overseer would and should not replace the
court in deciding what punitive and corrective actions should be
applied to Microsoft.
Thank you for your attention.
Geoffe Elias
AIM: geoffe02
quote:
"I have lived long enough and had enough success as well
as enough failure to tell you that you can never get discouraged,
and you can never quit.
. . . Because you can never know when a chance for a
miracle will pass you by."
-former President Clinton
MTC-00020411
From: Francisco Gayt(00E1)n
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:04am
Subject: the proposed settlement is a bad idea
The proposed settlement is a *BAD* idea.
Sincerely,
F.gaytan.
MTC-00020412
From: John Hussey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:03am
Subject: Stop the economically draining witch-hunt against
Microsoft!
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Please put a stop to the economically draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
The attorneys general insist that by prosecuting Microsoft for
building an Internet browser into their Windows operating system
they are somehow helping consumers. Yet the Microsoft suit has been
a disaster for consumers, investors, and taxpayers. If the attorneys
general prevail, consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for
software and lose the benefit of an integrated operating system.
Investors-who make up nearly half of all American
households-have watched their portfolios plummet. And
taxpayers have been forced to subsidize the attorney generals"
quixotic three-year legal odyssey. Courts in eight
[[Page 26885]]
states have already recognized the flawed nature of the case and
thrown out private antitrust suits against Microsoft.
The only benefit of the Microsoft case is that it has exposed
the naked ambition of the attorneys general. They should realize
that the emperor has no clothes before they do further damage to our
economy and legal system.
Therefore, please put a stop to this travesty of justice now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John M. Hussey
3354 N. Oconto Ave.
Chicago IL 60634
773-745-9887
[email protected]
MTC-00020413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:11am
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,
Stephen Cox
1553 Williamsburg Lane
Franklin, IN 46131-1952
MTC-00020414
From: Jane Dowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a great American company. It is not a monopoly.
They have won in business by being better than the competition, not
cheating the competition. You people need to take care of the
business that this country pays you for and leave Microsoft alone.
MTC-00020415
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:08am
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,
Bill Williams
6580 Shallowford Road
Lewisville, NC 27023-8651
MTC-00020416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the current persecution of Microsoft. It has been
nothing but a vehicle for weaker competitors to use government force
to stop Microsoft from doing such an excellent job and offering so
much value to customers, so the competitors could get more market
share without earning it. Market share should be determined by
competition and economics, not by politics.
Please end this case as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
David R. Linn
Cape Coral, Florida
MTC-00020417
From: Allen Davis Malony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse,
The Department of Justice's tentative settlement with Microsoft
of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is a very poor
solution to curtailing the well-documented anti-competitve nature of
Microsoft's obvious monopolistic practices. This settlement IS NOT
upholding either the antitrust laws for controlling monopolies that
prevent other companies from fairly competing, or the spirit of
those laws to have fair competition spur technological advancement.
Indeed, Microsoft has demonstrated in its aggressive actions towards
competitors, weilding its monopolistic weight and power, that it is
ONLY concern with maintaining its dominant position for business
profit. Its elimination of competitve products while assimilating,
with reservation, their technological ideas (if not directly
stealing their intellectual property) goes far to explain its lame
argument of being an "innovator."
As the tentative settlement stands, it represents a complicity
and an approval on the part of the Department of Justice to
Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. The precedent that would be set
by this settlement is disturbing from the point of view of the
Justice Department's and the White House's role in U.S. business.
Clearly, there is a problem with Microsoft as a monopoly, and
this problem continues even now. Please don't be part of the
problem. I admonish you not to approve this tentative settlement.
Furthermore, I urge you to "do the right thing" and to
treat Microsoft as severely as you would any company with so clear
and damning evidence against them.
Sincerely,
Allen D. Malony
Associate Professor
Dept. of Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon
MTC-00020418
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:05am
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,
Lloyd Baldwin
P.O. Box 6344
Malibu, CA 90264-6344
MTC-00020419
From: Mark Chou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ), and I am strongly
against it in it's current state.
-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 anti-competitive license terms
currently used by Microsoft
-The PFJ fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities
historically used by Microsoft
-The PFJ fails to prohibit anti-competitive practices
towards OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers)
-The PFJ, as currently written, appears to lack an
effective and meaningful enforcement mechanism. The PFJ, as written,
will allow and offer no substantive reduction of anti-competitive
practices, will delay emergence of competing Windows-compatible
operating systems, and thus not in the public interest.
[[Page 26886]]
It should not be adopted without substantial revision to address
these shortcomings.
For additional details, please see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html
Sincerely,
Mark Chou
Systems Programmer
Portland, OR
MTC-00020420
From: Brad Gillette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement is completely
unsatisfactory. Why? Because again, and again Microsoft has
willfully demonstrated its disdain for past injunctions and legal
settlements with the US Justice Department. The record and
documentation is quite clear else I would recite it once again in
this mailing.
It will be a travesty of justice if the current proposal becomes
the settlement. Almost as bad, would be the wasted millions in tax
dollars that the government has spent to finally get Microsoft
"on the ropes", and now have this administration
"roll over", allowing MS to get off w/ little more than
a slap on the wrist. This will only serve to tell MS that it can get
away w/ what ever it likes.
Brad Gillette
Software Engineer
MTC-00020422
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs /Madams,
I'm writing to express my concern about the leniency of the
proposed settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft. I am
not a US citizen, but I believe that this is an issue of global
importance. I believe the public comment period is open until 28
Jan, so here are my comments. Microsoft has been rightly found
guilty of abusing its position as a monopoly player. Since the first
round of hearings were concluded, it has not tempered its
activities.
-With the "Passport" scheme, it is looking to
place itself as a central broker in all economic transactions
occurring over the internet.
-With .NET subscription technologies and revised pricing
models, it is looking to tie users of its software into continually
paying.
-With restrictive, non-public OEM licenses on bootloaders, it
continues to artificiall;y keep alternative operating systems such
as Linux and the now-defunct BeOS from establishing market share,
and restrict the freedom of choice of those purchasing computers to
Microsoft or Microsoft.
Let me elaborate on that final point. As I understand it, a
Microsoft operating system is provided at low cost to a hardware
manufacturer on the proviso that they use the Microsoft
"bootloader" to launch the operating system when the
machine is switched on-despite the fact that other programs
not owned by Microsoft (and some freely available) can also
accomplish this task just as reliably. The Microsoft bootloader
license allegedly prohibits any other operating system from being
launched at the same time, preventing a hardware manufacturer from
offering a system that can run Microsoft Windows AND an alternative
operating system. I note that no such machines are available on the
market in either the US or Europe, and that such a purchase would be
both very attractive to many buyers, and the easiest way to gain
familiarity with alternative operating systems while still being
able to use Windows as well.
In the case of Linux, which is freely available, there would be
minimal per-unit cost to the manuacturer oin offering this
alternative either. The restrictions placed by the Microsoft OEM
licenses effectively keep the majority of computer users locked into
their state of ignorance about alternatives to Microsoft.
So long as Microsoft controls the only desktop operating system
in town (bar Apple, I admit) vendors of application software are
forced to play by their rules or else suffer the fate of Netscape.
In a world where a diversity of operating systems are prevalent, it
would be much harder for Microsoft (or any other single interest) to
pitch the rules in its favour in competition between application
vendors. A comprehensive solution must begin at the operating
system. The increased freedom to compete will then bubble up to the
applications, office suites, web browsers, etc.
Personally, I have felt motivated to investigate alternative
computing platforms simply to sever any reliance on a company that
seems so intent on milking its users as much as it can. I am
fortunate in being technically adept enough to do so, despite the
unnecessary difficulty of this process arising from the way in which
Microsoft has manipulated the market. Freeing the hardware
manufacturers from shipping only Microsoft-enabled boxes would
extend the freedom that I enjoy to many other computer users.
Please, take real measures to promote diversity in the future of
computing. I would single out the bootloader restrictions as the
most critical issue to be addressed here, and urge you to:
-prevent any operating system manufacturers from brokering
such restrictive deals outside of the public gaze
-prevent any operating system manufacturers from fostering the
development of closed hardware standards that will lock out
competitors
Thus far, Microsoft's power has been concentrated within the IT
arena. Once I switch my machine off, I needn't worry about them. But
the influence of IT is becoming more pervasive, and in many ways I
see benefits in this, so long as the public retains some control on
how information is used. I do not look forward to a situation in
which I am forced to license software from a specific vendor in
order to be able to shop for my groceries, use the transport system,
or other basic aspects of daily life. Such a prediction may sound
alarmist, but I do believe it is a distinct possibility. The way in
which this settlement is reached will provide a clear signal to
Microsoft and other large players in this emerging market as to the
extent to which the US government is willing to concede its role as
an international safeguard of human rights and freedom to closed
commercial interests that are willing to cynically flaunt the
established rules of business, whether that interest be Microsoft or
anyone else.
Thank you for listening.
Dave Crane
IT consultant
Bristol, UK
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020423
From: cinematique
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi. I go to school at Kent State University and I have a
troubling situation to share with you.
I registered for a class which was described as a course to
learn about modern computers. Nowhere in the course description were
the words Apple or Microsoft ever mentioned. I assumed it would be a
general course about surfing the web, learning to use a word
processor, a history over computers, et cetera. In reality, the
class extensively teaches how to use Microsoft Excel, Word, and
Windows 98.
When I asked the teacher if I could use a Macintosh and Office X
for Mac OS X, he said there shouldn't be any problems. This is
hardly the case. As a class, we were told that we could purchase
Office XP from the campus book store for the modest sum of $20. I
assumed that this meant I could also purchase the Macintosh version
of the same software for the same amount. In reality, I can't. In
fact, if I want to buy Office X for Mac OS X, the academic price is
$200.
Furthermore, the class website is designed to work only with
Windows computers running Internet Explorer 5.5. When I try to use
my Macintosh to view the website, parts refuse to load. This leaves
me completely unable to accomplish my classwork on my relatively new
Apple G4 computer.
Draw your own conclusions.
-Adam Ross
MTC-00020424
From: NewAje
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:15am
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
MTC-00020425
From: Bill Nugent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing with respect to the proposed Microsoft settlement
and I am against it because it does not go far enough to curb the
anti-trust abuses that Microsoft has been and is still engaged in.
The browser war has entered into a new chapter with Opera
(www.opera.com). A few weeks ago I was able to use the Microsoft web
site using
[[Page 26887]]
Opera but when I tried a few days ago there were delays other
problems. Reminds me of the Netscape browser war a few years back. I
have read news reports that Microsoft is actively blocking Opera on
other web sites as well such Hotmail.com.
I find it ironic that Microsoft does not feel the pressure to
write programs that conform to published Internet
standards-the Request for Comments (RFC's). Hotmail.com and
Microsoft Outlook for years have not been compliant with the email
address standards. Other companies scramble to fix these kinds of
bugs but Microsoft does nothing-is this not monopolistic
behavior?
Microsoft has now dropped support for Java in the latest release
of the browser but Java is growth is phenomenal. Would not a truly
competitive company continue support for Java? Other browsers such
as Netscape, Opera and Konqueror all support Java. Why does
Microsoft not feel competitive pressure?
Please abandon the US DOJ proposed settlement. Please join the
alternative settlement proposed by the other nine states that
actually will punish Microsoft and does more to create a level
playing field.
Sincerely,
Bill Nugent
Please-abandon the current settlement proposal
MTC-00020426
From: Chris Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Its simply unjust. Anyone looking at the situation sees
Microsoft as a strong competitor that has strong-armed the alternate
markets by leveraging their control of their monopoly in the desktop
operating system market and the office productivity market. It is a
shame to the justice that Microsoft can behave as they have and walk
away as unscathed as they have so far....
MTC-00020428
From: Majid Anwar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir/Madam,
There's probably not much more to say than has already been said
by many others-Microsoft practices clearly damage the industry
and consumers. An unaccountable amount of damage has already been
done, but it is not too late to put a stop to this.
MS plans for XP, .NET, XBox will *not* benefit users because
they do not provide useful public standards for services.
Competition is healthy and necessary and exploitation of a uniquely
inherited position to the detriment of society (the impact of all
this goes well beyond the IT industry) is plainly unfair in any
civilised arena.
It is also ironically unpatriotic to the American ideal and
reliance on a single closed standard will make society very
vulnerable due to the lack of choice and alternatives.
It must be your duty as guardians of justice to put a stop to
this. Millions of people are trusting you to perform your duty and
restrict anti-competitive practices, and compensate those who have
suffered because of MS unfair exploitations.
Regards,
Majid.
Dr Majid Anwar
Titanium Building, Braehead Business Park
Fax: +44 141 885 5599
Kings Inch Road, Glasgow G51 4BP, UK
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00020429
From: Jorge uerra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the breaking up of Microsoft. My company is losing
sales daily because of their unfair practices. Our developers have
even found evidence that MS is adjusting their products not to work
with ours. Please stop this company or slow them down.
-By controlling the news content they can shape public opinion
by presenting information on a favorable way to their interests.
-By controlling our identities on the Web (ie. Passport) they
can track our lives in ways that no government can ever do
-By using sabotage tactics on their competitor's products they
are eliminating the consumer's freedom of choice
Please help the American public, this company will become so
powerful that no government will be able to contain it.
Faithfully yours,
Jorge Guerra
(D) Miami, FL
MTC-00020430
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:32am
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,
Van B. Waulk
P.O. Box 1364
Lanark Village , FL 32323-1364
MTC-00020431
From: christopher lease
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
After hearing of the the proposed Microsoft anti-trust
settlement, I've been moved to express my thoughts on the matter...
I very idea that Microsoft would "pay" for its anti-
competitive errors by "giving" it's own software to
schools, to me is an insiduious and dangerous .
This action would give Microsoft and helping hand to pillage the
one market that they do not yet dominate. What will happen when it's
to UPGRADE this software that Microsoft gives our schools? Obviously
Microsoft knows that these systems will need to updated at some
point and they are betting that a flood of money will return to
them, locking out any and all competition.
I've also read from Microsoft press realizes that it defends
it's actions as "The freedom to innovate". From every
exp that I have ever had with their products, I an attest that they
have done very much less than innovate. For every product that
Microsoft makes I can name a non-Microsoft vendor who makes a
product of the same category which is superior in function to it's
Microsoft brand counterpart. Yet the Microsoft product still
dominates.... How can that be? Granted, company's are in business to
make money and that is the American way. So is fairness and honesty
& competition.
Concerned,
Christopher Lease,
Baltimore, MD
MTC-00020432
From: Sten Sundblad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:37am
Subject: Settle with Microsoft now
Microsoft is a young company, founded as late as in 1975. It's
also a much smaller company than most people assume, employing no
more than (I believe) about 30.000 people all over the world. While
a number to be respected, it doesn't make Microsoft into anything
like a giant. Even though Microsoft is far from being a giant, the
company has had an enormous impact on the lives of a very large part
of the world population. Microsoft has indeed put computers running
Microsoft software on almost everybody's desk, at home and in the
office, at least in developed democracies. With products like
Microsoft Office, the company has created a de-facto standard,
thereby making it possible for people of all nationalities and all
races to exchange electronic nicely formed information with each
other without hassle. By aggressively supporting Internet standards
such as HTML, HTTP, XML and the SOAP protocol, they're rapidly
increasing the chance for people to connect over the Internet and
exchange information at an even higher level. The cost for computers
and for Microsoft software has been kept incredibly low. This must
be an indisputable fact, because if it wasn't so, users would have
selected other products or possibly even rejected the use of
computers in their homes.
Now Microsoft is threatening companies like Oracle and Sun. They
do so by going in on domains where these companies have before been
able to work with very high prices and profit margins for
"enterprise level" IT products. We can already see that
[[Page 26888]]
companies start to run their business critical software on Microsoft
Windows 2000 with Microsoft SQL Server rather than with Sun's
operating systems and Oracle's databases. The reason is cost
effectiveness. This means that companies are going to be able to
reap the same kinds of benefits with Microsoft products that
individuals have already done. Of course, this does not sit well
with Microsoft's competitors, but it sits very well with consumers.
The situation for companies competing with Microsoft is now
becoming even worse. The new .NET initiative promises a new and even
more cost effective world of computing for consumers of the world,
be they individuals or businesses. It's now in your power to work
against consumers and for back-striding companies that can't keep up
with the pace Microsoft is setting. If you select to support these
back-striding companies by not settling with Microsoft in a
reasonable way now, you won't only work against consumers but also
against the majority of IT vendors that do not share the hostility
towards Microsoft demonstrated again and again by Sun and Oracle now
and Netscape before AOL bought the company.
To conclude, Microsoft is a threat to a very small number of IT
vendors with high prices and high profit margins, but not to
consumers. Please support the consumers of America and the rest of
the free world by giving Microsoft the peace they need to innovate.
The world needs that!
Sten Sundblad, ADB-Arkitektur AB
Microsoft Regional Director, Sweden
Email: [email protected]
WWW: http://www.adbark.se
http://www.adbark.com
Kungsgatan 113, Box 437, 751 06 UPPSALA, SWEDEN
Phone: +46(0)18-69 51 00 Fax: +46(0)18-69 51 59
MTC-00020433
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:33am
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 Sheesley
253 E Kline St
Girard, OH 44420-2623
MTC-00020434
From: steven.ferguson@ transport.alstom.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38am
Subject: Well what can one say, only that it sems that Microsoft can
get away with Well what can one say, only that it sems that
Microsoft can get away with what ever they want, if they can cover
it up, then who is interested in the man in the street ? nobody it
seems....
I am now migrating over to Linux, because as far as I am
concerned it stinks BIG TIME ! I dare say that some nice little
deals are being done on the side to keep people sweet, but as usual
these will be covered up as well...................
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or
copy the information in any medium.
MTC-00020435
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:34am
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,
david fenwick
e. cotton hill rd.
new hartford, CT 06057
MTC-00020436
From: Erwan Barret
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam, Dear Sir,
As a contributor to many IT magazines, including MacDirectory in
the USA, I feel it is my responsibility to contribute to the
settlement of the Microsoft case by seizing the opportunity you
offer to users. I can remember the time when I was a strong advocate
of Microsoft as an application software vendor, when their position
did not endanger competition. I insist that in this time, Microsoft
was still a company that regularly introduced inventions, thus
helping the whole industry to go forward. In my opinion, it has now
been a long time since this happened. My current work, and the jobs
of many people in the USA and in the world depend directly from
computer products, among which Microsoft product still hold a
considerable importance. Everyone I know uses Microsoft at work. We
defend Microsoft as a software application company as much as we
deplore that they could legally reach such a hegemony in the OS
industry.
Therefore I am strongly opposed to the simple paiment of a fine.
Fines are a penalty for the poor, not for the rich. It is that
simple. The other reason is, the application to Microsoft of very
clever antitrust laws can only save jobs in the long run, AND make
the industry go further, faster and in a more efficient way.
The people who designed Word and Excel are not the same as those
who design unsecure, unstable and proprietary operating systems.
Laws allow you to part them for the best: excellent multi-platform
software applications on one side, and operating systems confronted
in a fair market to a clever competition on the other side.
The main goal is supposed to be customer satisfaction.
Aforementioned suggestions, no different from those indicated by the
law, are an obvious gain to everyone. I'm looking forward to seeing
fairly competing Baby Mikes challenge Apple, Oracle, UNIX
integrators and many other companies who do compete fairly on the
common ground of quality.
Many thanks for allowing users to express their opinion.
Erwan Barret
[email protected]
MTC-00020437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:32am
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 Baumann
402 Alexander Avenue
Deltona, FL 32725-8302
MTC-00020438
From: Computer City Distribution
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 26889]]
About five years ago in Ireland almost every PC builder and re-
seller signed a petition and gave it to Microsoft objecting to their
anti-competitive & monopolistic behaviour. Everyone has known
about this for a long time. Freedom in America has allowed Bill
Gates to become the richest man in the world. He is now using his
money to take that freedom away from anyone whom he feels may become
a threat to his crown. Give the next Netscape it's freedom and split
Microsoft up.
Best
Greg
Computer City Dist
Ireland.
MTC-00020439
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:39am
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,
Jim Teegerstrom
2115 Dakota
Norman, OK 73069
MTC-00020440
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:41am
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,
Byrd Hinshaw
2402 Trent Road
New Bern, NC 28562-2020
MTC-00020441
From: William Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is one of the worst
mistakes in the history of antitrust cases. Microsoft is a monopoly,
this is a fact. The proposed settlement will do nothing to change
that. Microsoft is sitting on one of the largest piles of cash ever
held by a corporation. They have control of most of the technology
industry. They have control of the OS, they have control of key
applications, they are trying to gain control of handhelds, video
game systems and cable boxes. Where does it stop? How can anyone
compete with a company that has billions in cash to spend taking
over new markets?
The settlement as proposed is a mistake.
William Morris
MTC-00020442
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:39am
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,
Jim Thibeault
101 Hutson Dr. H 2
Summerville, SC 29483
MTC-00020443
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:47am
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,
Vicky Peterson
P.O. Box 55
Howell, UT 84316-0055
MTC-00020444
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:44am
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,
William Sullivan
7266 West Market St. #138
Mercer, PA 16137-6633
MTC-00020445
From: Richard Knapp
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 5:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I do not agree with this agreement. You have a company that has
done everything in its power to control the PC market. The
government has found them in violation of the law two prior times
and has come to an "agreement" with them. The company
has willfully and blatantly violated both of those agreements. So we
are going to draw up another similar agreement?
This settlement seems to be nothing more than a slap on the
wrist. To say such treatment is patriotic during these times is
garbage. Seems to me, the patriotic thing to do would be to obey the
law, not discard it when convenient to do so.
Thank you for your time.
Richard Knapp
MTC-00020446
From: Ben Senior
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Software systems are fundamentally different to hardware
systems-ostensibly in their ability to replicate without
consuming
[[Page 26890]]
resources, and their further capacity for self-(re)definition. That
the software industry continues to use a metaphor derived from the
era of industrial revolution does not mean that it will last. As a
researcher at the cutting edge of Large-Systems construction it is
patently apparent that this is so.
The restrictions being placed on the market place, and on the
entire conceptual view of "what computer systems are" by
microsoft will become the single greatest limitation on the
evolution of organisational support systems-which in essence
is what large information systems are.
Given that our self-organisation is the basis of our species
evolution (it is the only thing we have evolved in thirty thousand
years, look at the collective impact and capabilities of our species
now), and given that modes of political and social orientation are
centrally dependent upon our capacity to organise in novel ways, I
would go so far as to say that the monopoly of microsoft is not
simply industrial, but intellectual and ideological.
In the terrain of software development Microsoft is so absurdely
adept at obliterating any signs of competition precisely because it
is able to apply, with great coordination, its myriad departments
and products in such a way that they re-shape the commercial terrain
pre-emptively before initially under-priced targetting products are
used like daisy-cutters.
The single most important thing to do is to prevent Microsoft
coordinating its forces. This is the necessary first step. This is
precisely what the DoJ is not doing.
Mr T. Senior, Bsc Mres
University of Manchester
MTC-00020447
From: Alex Hewson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
speaking as a brit... i don't think the current antitrust
settlement goes far enough. It almost certainly won't stop
Microsoft's attempts to dominate the industry (witness the latest,
passport-with it Microsoft hopes to control *all*
authentication to computers and websites in the world. I for one am
not at all happy with seeing a single company (especially one thats
already proved itself so untrustworthy) weild so much power. You
still have a chance to prevent this from happening-will you
take it?
Regards,
A. Hewson
MTC-00020448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:46am
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,
Debra Cox
1008 Old Baltimore Pike
Newark, DE 19702-1202
MTC-00020449
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to register a complaint to the effect that
settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. Its predatory practices has
reduced cosumer's choice in many software markets, not only that of
operating system software. Please consider the future health of the
computer marketplace and punish Microsoft to the fullest extent
possible in order to help prevent its illegal practices.
Chase Tsang
Thousand Oaks, CA
MTC-00020450
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:54am
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,
JUDY GARTHWAITE
1400 GRASSLANDS BLVD
UNIT#76
LAKELAND, FL 33803
MTC-00020451
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:54am
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 Hayes
315 Edwards Lane
Palm Beach Shores, FL 33404-5720
MTC-00020452
From: RJH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a user of both Microsoft and Netscape software in the UK, I
wish to comment on the proposed settlement of the above case. I will
keep this short and only comment as a user of computer software. The
terms of the settlement proposed would appear, to the
"ordinary man in the street" to be a sudden capitulation
by Government to big business, and is effectively allowing Microsoft
to walk free without serious penalty or inhibiting it from future
offences. This is incredible, after proving that Microsoft was
guilty of monopolistic and anti-trust behaviour.
Such a capitulation will ultimately be to the detriment of both
industry and the consumer.
Specifically, from my perspective as a user, Microsoft destroyed
the Netscape Company and the Navigator browser software and also
encouraged the use of unique web server software code
configurations, which, to this day makes it difficult to receive
Microsoft server data on a Netscape browser, and obliges (forces)
the user to use the Microsoft program.
The the user, the very minimum believable remedy would be to
oblige Microsoft to separate the operating system software (Windows)
from the application software (Internet Explorer, Ofice etc), which
is not difficult.
By this I mean at the software program level-any
separation of the Microsoft business activities would be a bonus, by
virtue of the additional protection afforded to the consumer of
future anti-competitive behaviour.
Regards
Richard Howes
MTC-00020453
From: Jason Lazzara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement really stinks. Microsoft is
getting off without much payback to the rest of the world.
->jason lazzara
[[Page 26891]]
MTC-00020454
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:52am
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,
PETER MARTINI
6773 MYRTLEWOOD RD
NORTH PORT, FL 34287
MTC-00020455
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:55am
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,
Dallas Hayes
12548 Simmons Road
Hampton, GA 30228
MTC-00020456
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:52am
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,
Nunzio Nano
24 Dingley Street
Leominster, MA 01453-1914
MTC-00020457
From: Douglas Metcalfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a roll over by the DOJ-written by
Microsoft, for Microsoft. Somebody at the DOJ should stand up for
the rule of Law. This is a disgraceful cave in, and political
pandering of the very worst kind.
Much worse than simply profiting from it's monopoly, Microsoft
continues to strangle innovation in the cradle. What Microsoft can
not steal it kills. This had caused untold harm to consumers, who
have been deprived of quality products for years by this predatory
monopolist's tactics. It is now the DOJ itself that has been
perverted by this case. My faith in the American Legal system is
solely in the hands of the Judge, if she supports this settlement,
then America truly does have the best legal system money can buy.
Douglas Metcalfe
Pittsburgh, PA
MTC-00020458
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:57am
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,
john polcaro
3495 highway 17n
bartow, FL 33830-9241
MTC-00020459
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:00am
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. nThis 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,
Joel Taylor
PO Box 190206
Burton, MI 48519-0206
MTC-00020460
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:55am
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,
Harvey Bock
3347 Starboard Dr.
Holland, MI 49424
MTC-00020461
From: junk(a)berristead.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justice needs to be seen to be done, and at the moment Microsoft
has been abusing the process by serial delaying tactics while it
decimates the opposition. I find this grossly disrespectful of the
legal system. Legal practice needs to be a whole lot faster if it is
not going to be abused in this way. Less juries, more clued up
judges. The present (proposed) settlement is a slap on the wrist. It
implies an embaressingly weak judiciary with a heavy Republican hand
on its shoulder. Microsoft have been convicted of
[[Page 26892]]
destroying other companies by abusing a monopoly. They have probably
caused more damage to the US economy and its development than 11/9,
but have done it by stealth and obfuscation.
Microsoft have a cash pile of 3bn. Take it, and then divide them
as was in the initial plan. They will continue to thrive, but stand
more chance of doing so fairly.
Tom Hughes
MTC-00020462
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:01am
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,
john polcaro
3495 highway 17n
bartow, FL 33830-9241
MTC-00020464
From: Mat Diss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I would like to express my dismay that a proven monopoly such as
Microsoft, with a history of manipulation, has been "let off
lightly" by the DoJ and will now be able to effectively carry
on with its monopolistic pursuits unhindered.
Microsoft makes a LOT of money from giving people no choice but
to run its software, perhaps it is time to let the people have their
choice by being able to buy PC's with the software they would like
to run, not the software that Microsoft dictates they should run.
Here in Europe, computer stores cannot sell PC's without Windows on
them as Microsoft does not allow it.
Thankyou
Mat Diss.
MTC-00020465
From: christopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Firstly I am not an American citizen but do have to suffer the
constent barrage of poor products from Microsoft ( It is my
profession to aleviate the problems other people have with Microsoft
software ). We constantly see America being portrayed ( by
yourselves through your media ) as a land of truth, justice and
democracy. America is the torch bearer for the concept that a free
economy can heal all the worlds ills. Your decision has shown that
all these claims are totally unfounded, money comes before all else
and nothing will get in it's way, the end result of a free economy
is corruption, consumers/citizens are only there to be exploited,
technology is to be exploited, not for the further advancement of
the humananity but for the financial enrichment of a company at the
expense of the advancement of humanity.
You have done yourselves proud.
Chritopher O Connor,
[email protected]
MTC-00020466
From: Rick Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I feel that the proposed settlement will not do enough to
correct Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Microsoft's Windows
Win32 API has become the de-facto operating system API for personal
computers. The only way to restore competition in the market is to
turn support for the Win32 API into a potential area of competition.
Microsoft should have to publish the complete Win32 API so that
other operating systems could gain the same level of application
support that Windows currently enjoys.
Microsoft should be barred from including language in their
other product licenses that prohibit the use of their product on
non-Microsoft operating systems.
Hardware vendors should be free from retaliation from Microsoft
if they choose to sell systems without any Microsoft operating
system pre-installed. Microsoft should be heavily penalized in the
event of any future discoveries of code in any of their other
products that goes beyond the Win32 API specification to verify that
it is running on a Microsoft operation system rather than another
vendor's implementation of the API.
Thank you for your time,
Richard Harris
Bethel Park, PA
MTC-00020467
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:02am
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,
Dick Killmer
221 Woodbond Rd.
Rindge, NH 03461-3336
MTC-00020468
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08am
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,
Robert Haver
4169 Kenneth Rd
Stow, OH 44224
MTC-00020469
From: Michael O'Neill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's attitude seems to be like that of an old Imperialist
justifying England's Colonial Expansion. "Sure, we might have
enslaved a few million, yes we may have held a few economies back
and stolen other countries resources to benefit our own so that we
didn't have to work too hard, byt he, at least we can all speak
English, right?"
Microsoft program and OS writers have proved themselves lazy and
incompetent. Having done good some initial work on a GUI, they then
generated feature-rich and security poor software over the past
seven years, with a disastrous EULA, all in the name of screwing
more money out of customers.
Was there a need for WinXP or Me so soon after Win2K? No. There
was a need for a secure Win2K, with no Internet Explorer code in the
OS code AT ALL!!!
Most of the hacking exploits that Microsoft OSes are prone to
are enabled by IIS server code or Internet Explorer Code or simply
crappy application code handling of buffer overflows or the damned
"interoperability" between Outlook/Outlook Express and
other proggies. Microsoft wanted the Internet to itself so it wasted
Netscape. It wants its users to remain clueless so it made things so
easy
[[Page 26893]]
that every two-bit hacker could exploit holes in its badly written
OS and applications code. It wants .Net enabled on all systems so it
can "rent" applications and "look after"
other peoples information [the Hotmail EULA put paid to that...]
Integration of Server and IE code into the OS doesn't just bring
the internet to your fingertips, it brings every malicious cracker
to your hard drive! Leasing applications and storing information
using the internet means the crackers don't even have to get into
your hard drive, just the relevant microsoft server, and we've all
seen how secure Microsoft are in the last twelve months! Microsofts
quest for domination has exposed private and public users and
government departments the world over to using insecure
installations for sensitive data.
Not only is the Microsoft Settlement flawed, it is illegal in my
opinion, the DoJ failing to discharge its duty to the benefit of all
consumers which is to encourage free trade and competition. A
judgement which limits Microsoft to providing ONLY the Operating
System [OS] AND which prevents any sister company the DoJ might set
up to produce applications benefitting unfairly from knowledge of
the source code is what it needed. That way companies making
sucessfuly products such as browsers might flourish once again.
But even if the DoJ do nothing, Microsoft's halcyon days are
numbered. Apple sought market exclusivity and profiteering by
sticking to the hardware like glue. Microsoft has tried to achive
the same thing by bullying and sticking to the Operating System like
glue. Nor will Microsoft's quest to dominate the Net last for too
long, I'm afraid. Nor will any restrictive approach will work, long
term. Open Source and the GPL are here to stay.
Yes, ironically I'm using a Microsoft Operating system with an
old version of Netscape to running on it to send this message. I
will probably invest in Win2K for a while, but this year makes the
changeover to Linux, prolly either SuSE or Mandrake [or both!] and I
don't expect to be looking back over my shoulder too often. Star
Office /Open Office, with Opera as a browser, here I come!
Michael O'Neill.
MTC-00020470
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08am
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,
Diane Reinstadtler
7500 W. Lake Mead Bvd #9-192
Las Vegas, NV 89128
MTC-00020471
From: Robin Datta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
It seems AOL is trying to revive a putrefied corpse. There is no
quetion that a separate browser apart from IE would never have
reached the seamlessness and efficacy of the present system. And
even to this date, if one wants, there are several browsers out
there that one can download, install and use as an alternate
broweer. Some of these browsers do serve special needs and I use
Opera from time to time.
But to change the venue for competition to the courts from the
marketplace is, if anythig, uncompetitive. If AOL has a better
browser, let it offer the item as a package deal with AOL service to
its customers.
At one time I was also an AOLie, when they came out with an easy
interface for Windows3.1. However they did not offer internet acces.
That was in the days of the net berore the web. But I switched to
Netcom because I wanted to have Internet access rather than be
limited to AOL content and to their restrictive policies (the so-
called "Terms of Service". I did not go back to AOL
after that. While with Netcom, I had a shell account, and I had
perforce to learn how to set up my shell and a bunch of UNIX
comlands to get around on the net (no web then). All downloads were
by FTP to my shell account and then had to be xmodemed / ymodemed /
zmodemed to my hard disk. I am glad that I had the opportunity to
learn how to work UNIX, FTP and the x, y, and z modem protocols as
well as ARCHIE, VERONICA, and the mailreaders, newsreaders and
wordprocessors of the UNIX shells.
And when the web came along, I initiallly used SlipKnot to
access the web through my shell account. Then I used the PPP
emulator that originated in Australia. It had to be placed in my
shelll account and compiled to make it active. I forget its name but
I probably still have it on one of my numerous floppies that have
long been collecting dust.
With the PPP emulation, I did use the Netscape browser but I
never felt it right to have to cough up cash for what I thaought
should be an integral part of the system: I got the PPP emulator for
free. The coming of the internet Explorer changed the situation; the
efficiency or lack thereof of the PPP emulator led me to subscribe
to a PPP account at Netcom.
Ofcourse Netcom was bought up by ICG and then by MindSpring
which merged with Earthlink, and there is where it stands today. I
am grateful to Microsoft for making it possible to do things more
easily; I reject AOL as an ISP since I want my ISP to be pure
conduit and no content. (That's the reason why I do not go with
MSN).
I say get off Microsoft's back. Go back to the market and do
what you can do. The courts are not a substitute for the market when
one falis in the market. We have a good thing going with Microsoft's
products and services. AOL did not and does not cut the mustard, at
least with those who care to do better.
Robin Datta
9228 N Stoneridge Ln
Fresno CA 93720-1210
[email protected]
MTC-00020472
From: Demian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madams and Sirs,
I am writing to let my opinion as a citizen known about the
Microsoft antitrust case. As a person who depends on computers for
my job, you might imagine that I have strong opinions about this
case. Over the past 12 years or so, I have noticed two clear trends
in the "WinTel" computer industry:
1) computer hardware has become more reliable, faster and
cheaper with more choices
2) computer software has become less reliable, less affordable,
and with less choices
Economically-as a consumer and computer
user-Microsoft's (now found to be) illegal business practices
have hurt me this way. While the hardware market seems rife with
cost-savings, innovation and competitive diversity, the software
market is expensive, stagnant and utterly without innovation.
And-of course-without robust software, the best hardware
in the world is as useful as a door-stop.
It seems that anytime someone comes out with a new software
concept that could truly return aggressive competition and new ideas
to the software side of the equation (i.e., Java, QuickTime,
OpenDoc, RealAudio, Netscape, Novell, etc.), Microsoft uses its
illegally gained Monopoly to "embrace, make proprietary, or
buy-out" such technologies.
I find it quite frustrating that Microsoft-which used
illegal business practices to achieve much of its software
dominance-is casually using such ill-gotten gains to achieve
dominance in far-reaching markets such as News and Media,
Entertainment and Gaming, and Cable/Telecommunications. I must urge
the DOJ to finally and permanently put a stop to the way in which
Microsoft does business: mainly, using monopoly power in one market
to create emerging monopolies in other markets.
Like any other guilty criminal entity, I would hope to see
Microsoft punished and restrained from acting in a criminal manner
in the future in order to bring balance and progression back to the
U.S. Software industry. I am very concerned that the current
settlement proposed by the DOJ is completely and woefully inadequate
in this regard.
Thank you for allowing my input.
-Demian Rosenblatt
-San Francisco, California
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
MTC-00020473
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 26894]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08am
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,
Rebecca Millican
6027 Lilli Way
Bradenton, FL 34207-4742
MTC-00020474
From: Jonathan Riddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am appaled at the proposed Microsoft Settlement. Allowing a
monopoly to give away it's product is no way to help competition. I
am not a US citizen but this settlement affects all computer users.
A /far/ better solution is suggested at: http://www.gnu.org/
philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
In short the points are:
-Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all
interfaces between software components, all communications
protocols, and all file formats.
-Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the
field of software.
-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.
This would allow truly free competition.
Jonathan Riddell
MTC-00020475
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to advise you that I believe that I support he
governments settlement with Microsoft. The witch hunt of Microsoft
has gone long enough!
ER Ramirez
MTC-00020476
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:09am
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,
Shirley Haver
4169 Kenneth Rd.
Stow, OH 44224
MTC-00020477
From: Wilson, Gerald
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 6:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DoJ,
For years I have followed closely-or as closely as I can
from here in the UK-the antitrust case brought by DoJ and
sundry US States against Microsoft.
I realise that, in making a legal case, it can be important to
limit the areas of dispute, and to fight on grounds which are
reasonably assured. So I am aware that the case brought by the
plaintiffs against Microsoft was specific and limited.
As the evidence presented to the initial presiding judge (Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson) accumulated in public view, it became
manifest to the common man that the case against Microsoft was
simply overwhelming. Judge Jackson himself, in his Findings of Fact,
set a new precedent for the clarity of assessment of complicated
technical argument. Microsoft had been found demonstrably guilty as
charged; all that was required was a punishment fit for the crime.
It was no surprise that Microsoft should choose to appeal Thomas
Jackson's judgement, and it was (of course) regrettable that Thomas
Jackson, by some of his own ill-advised actions, strengthened the
grounds for the appeal. Nevertheless, regardless of any propaganda
interpretation, the simple fact remains: the appeal court
substantially upheld Jackson's judgement. Microsoft, on appeal, had
still been found guilty as charged; all that was required was a
punishment fit for the crime.
It falls to you to deliver that punishment; and to make such
remedial changes as are needed to prevent that crime from ever being
repeated. In drafting the punishment and remedy, it is important to
consider the context of the crime. Microsoft's criminal behaviour,
as proven by the antitrust case, is not a temporary aberration.
Rather it is a chronic condition. There are numerous other examples
of anticompetitive behaviour from Microsoft which might equally well
have formed the basis of a provable case. For example: actions taken
against the product DR-DOS more than ten years ago; the undermining
of Apple Computer's business by withdrawing applications support at
the time of the launch of Windows 95; the propaganda campaign to
undermine the OpenDoc standard, when it was perceived as a threat to
Microsoft's maintenance of the applications barrier to entry. The
examples are legion. The effect has been clear. Over more than a
decade Microsoft has built a monopoly business by illegal means, and
has then sought to protect that monopoly by further illegal means.
The damage is felt worldwide. These actions have harmed the
interests of consumers, business and the computer industry in
general. Because of these actions the world's IT is over-priced,
which means that throughout the world products cost more than they
need to, schools can afford fewer facilities, hospitals can afford
less medical care, and ultimately more people perish from ill-
health, malnutrition and starvation. Microsoft is rich because,
through its illegal monopoly, it has siphoned money away from
everyone else. That, ultimately, is the crime the DoJ has to punish,
and the yoke which the DoJ must lift from future generations.
The year 2001 has seen some spectacular demonstrations of the
cost to the world of the Microsoft monopoly. Email viruses like
SirCam have brought business to its knees. Security experts confirm:
these are direct consequences of the world's enforced dependence on
shabbily insecure Microsoft products.
I would like to believe that you are up to this awesome
responsibility, and are poised to deliver appropriate punishment and
necessary remedy. Alas, I don't think you are. From all that I have
read about the details of the proposed final settlement it looks
like a spineless cave-in. The guilty criminal will go unpunished,
and the criminal behaviour will carry on, to plague the next
generation as it has plagued this one. This is a time in history
when you can make a difference. Are you Makers of Difference?
History, I think, will judge Thomas Jackson well. At least he had
guts.
How history judges the DoJ's final settlement is unknown.
Gutless? We shall see.
Gerald W Wilson
Engineering Facilities Manager
MTC-00020478
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to state my sentiments on the antitrust case against
Microsoft. As a frequent computer user, Microsoft has given my
family and me a great variety of choices and types of applications.
I can and do use other programs, including Netscape, but I have been
more than pleased with Microsoft products. The truth is that
Microsoft products are very high quality, and therefore, the public
benefits by using them. Punishing them for having a corner on the
software market is simply punishing creativity and enterprise, and
the customer is the one who suffers in the end. We as customers can
[[Page 26895]]
choose other products if we wish-just because Microsoft
products are packaged with a new computer does not mean that every
person will choose to use them. Providing a good service to new
users for a good price is not a crime, and should encourage the
competitors to try to improve their products to attract more
customers. Please bring this suit against Microsoft to an end, and
allow consumers to have the full range of choices we have enjoyed to
this point. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eileen F. Childers
PSC 36 Box 288
APO, AE 09456
Phone: 011-44-1985-308809
MTC-00020481
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:17am
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,
stephen dalton
stephen
103 white oak dr.
morton, IL 61550
MTC-00020482
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:14am
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,
David Lord
7700 Hillmont Dr.
Columbus, GA 31909
MTC-00020483
From: Roy Mcpherson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
MTC-00020483-0001
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have decided to write you in relation to this case against
Microsoft and add my voice to the millions of other computer users
who use the Windows Operating System and want to be able to havea
choice.
To make my point blunt and to the point. I want teh choice to be
able to use another operating system. I also still want to be able
to use products that can run on windows as they hold the monopoly.
Whether I use Macintosh or Linux, I still need to be able to use
Windows products because, everyone else has to too.
I live in Australia. And everything that happens in the United
States affects everyone in the world. I respects Microsofts right to
be able to make a product, and make a profit. But i do not respect a
company that holds 90% of the desktops around the world, but doesnt
let their source cold out too the public so all operatinf systems
may be compatiable. And that, is where i think my argument comes to
its final point.
Microsofts monopoly would not mean as much if their source cold
was open to the public. The Company would not have to be split up.
If another company out there was allowed to make a word processor
that could read Microsoft Word .DOC Documents ect as well as every
other file extention or file name.., then every operating system and
program could be made compatible and you would have true
competition.
Please, Take this last point as the most serious of this letter.
Roy McPherson
[email protected]
2/40 Alexandra st
Rockhampton Old 4701 Australia
MTC-00020484
From: Jonathan Tyzack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
I will keep this brief as you have no doubt had many e-mails
that already make many of the points I would have normally put
forward. However, there is one issue that I would like for you to
take into consideration and that is the impact on computing globally
if this mockery of a settlement is allowed to proceed. Microsoft has
an even greater stanglehold on the majority of non-US computing
markets than the one it has in the US. If this settlement, which is
so pathetically feeble it beggars belief, is followed through, it
will effectively enable MS to dominate the world even more than it
does now. So, please take this into consideration when deliberating
on your decision-it affects many, many more people than just
the US population.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Tyzack
MTC-00020485
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:16am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Judgement
Sirs:
The proposed judgement on the Microsoft antitrust case is
inadequate to address existing and future problems. I have
continually been forced to change my way of doing business as a
result of Microsoft's practices. Word processor software, version
control software, and many other software forms; the vendors have
either been forced out of business, purchased and disbanded, unable
to compete with Microsoft products due to inavailability of
information of "secret" Window's interfaces.
A much more strict and comprehensive set of damages is needed.
Dr. John O. Ballenthin
John and Linda Ballenthin
5 Rolling Lane
Lexington, MA 02421-7515
781-862-4179
[email protected]
MTC-00020486
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:12am
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,
Doris Brown
704 Copper Creek Rd
BErea, KY 40403
MTC-00020487
From: J. Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
It seems the time is comming close to the settlement date. I
would like to protest that Microsoft is getting away without any
major changes. They should be broken up, they have hindered the free
market too long with their monopaly.
[[Page 26896]]
Having one company control 99% of the software and Operating
systems market is just not fair on other companys. MS embrace new
technology and then modify it so it is incompatible with other
companys competing product. Using their Monopaly of the Desktop they
are now forcing their way into other areas such as "online
media players" and "online chat clients".
Please do the right thing and split MS up. Other companys have
been hindered for too long.
Yours sincerly
Jonathan Grant
MTC-00020488
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:22am
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,
William H Matthews Jr
1236 Highview Rd
Lantana, FL 33462-5912
MTC-00020489
From: Chukwuma Uwakaneme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It was a shock to hear the settlement proposed by the DOJ in the
sense that no significant retribution was handed out to Microsoft in
addition to a lax control on future business practices. Microsoft
has shown time again that it has no regards to anybody, consumers,
competitors, the government and the law of the land. Even as it was
going through the legal problems, it continued to do the very things
that necessitated the suit in the first place. It seems anything is
good as long as it will increase the profit of Microsoft. Whether it
is lies and FUD against competitors, irrespective of how little they
are, relentless draining of consumer's income because they have very
little choice.
In the past several years, the average price of computers went
from about $2.000.00 to $900.00. This was because of the competition
that Advanced Micro Devices was able to build against Intel. If
anyone else could build the same competition in the software arena
against Microsoft, the average price will drop further down, where
the majority of the populace can afford a decent computer. As a
matter of fact Microsoft is the only one that has increased the
price of the computer's operating system-Window's XP.
What may happen eventually is that we will all be charged if we
don't use MSN as our ISP. What right do we have to run Windows and
not use the ISP of the company that put Window's on your desk top. I
am sure they are working on this through the "Passport"
or by eliminating all other ISP choices. It worked with Word
Processor and the Spreadsheet, after all.
Sincerely
C.U.
MTC-00020490
From: John-J-SMITH/BE/
ALCATEL@ALCATEL@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While I am from the EU, I think I can still lodge my complaints
about the MS Anti Trust settlement.
I use unix at work, with netscape. MS is trying to dominate the
web with its new .NET initiative which means that by sheer market
forces, I will no longer be able to browse a large amount of .NET
based web sites, and since MS do not release their software for
Unix, I will either have to choose between the WWW or using a
Microsoft product. This is unlawful abuse of monopoly.
I also wish to buy a laptop. I don't need a new OS for it (my
old laptops screen went). So why do I have to buy another version of
Windows for it?
I might even install linux on it instead. Yet I still have to
pay for it?
I have long since bought factory built PCs because they've
forced me to rebuy my operating system each times (I have 2 windows
95 license, and 2 Windows 98 licenses already, I do not want to own
2000/ME/XP or any future MS Operating system). Why should I have to
buy all the components to build my PC, rather than buy a pre built
one? Because otherwise MS will make me pay for something I do not
want or require.
The current toothless settlement of the Anti trust case changes
neither of these things, and gives Microsoft leeway to march
completely over the rest of the small computer software companies in
the world. The settlement has given us a future:
"Either sell your company to Microsoft, or be
eradicated".
And I see that as your fault.
John
MTC-00020491
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:22am
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,
Al Kay
3099 Bridgehampton Lane
Orlando, FL 32812
MTC-00020492
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:20am
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 Kneen
2414 Oak Street
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
MTC-00020493
From: Jon McGuire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
Just a quick note during this public comment period to voice
support for Microsoft, and for ending this action once and for all.
I believe the DOJ's case was marked by significant
misunderstandings of the general business environment, the needs of
consumers, and the technology-related questions in the case. This
was further tainted by the very poor quality of testimony provided
by members of academia and actions by Microsoft's competitors in
what amounts to using the government to further their own business
goals.
The government has wasted enough time and money on this
ridiculous action, which in my opinion should have never seen the
light of day in the first place.
Sincerely,
Jon McGuire
[[Page 26897]]
Senior Architect for a Fortune 50 company
MTC-00020494
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:25am
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,
James Briggs
13415 E. 510 Rd
Claremore, OK 74017
MTC-00020495
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:25am
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,
Patricia Darby
416 Old Veechdale Rd
Simpsonville, KY 40067
MTC-00020496
From: Stephen Rowles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:29am
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.
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.
MTC-00020497
From: Herbie Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not think the proposed Microsoft settlement is in the best
interest of the American consumers. They have been thumbing their
nose at the court through the entire proceeding and will continue to
if this settlement goes through. Some examples:
They appear to have been using their monopoly power to inflict
the inferior (a widely held opinion) Windows Media Technology on the
public: Even though superior, standards based technologies existed
long before Microsoft even looked at streaming media on the
Internet. They are rumored to have used monopoly influence over OEM
computer manufacturers to force them to remove dual boot software
that would allow the computers they shipped to run either BeOS or
Windows. This kept the manufacturer of BeOS from even giving it away
as a promotion! This is just what I happen to know about.
Oh, and they touch enough of the computer industry that most
professionals are probably afraid to comment publicly on the
settlement (out of fear of retribution or blacklisting). I'm
certainly nervous about it. [They have no direct way of getting at
me, now, but fortunes often change quickly in this
industry-and they are driving just about everybody else out of
business.]
Herbert W. Robinson
116 Carver Rd.
Newton MA 02461-1338
MTC-00020498
From: Peter Wilson
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 6:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a person who writes legal documents from time to time, it
seems a bit strange to see MS use the word "reasonable"
so many times in their documents to the court.
Please review all Microsoft's documents for the word
"reasonable" and treat that word as a suspicious ploy to
avoid whatever the outcome of the settlement is.
If you have any questions of problems, please contact me and I
will be happy to help.
Sincerely,
Peter Wilson
Manager, Software Support Services
MIDAR Pty Ltd
PO Box 135, Latham ACT 215, Australia
Office : +61 (2) 6278-6364
MTC-00020499
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:24am
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,
Trina Blanchard
1203 Tallokas Road
Crestview, FL 32536
MTC-00020500
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:26am
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,
john cormier
144 jaffrey st.
weymouth, MA 02188
MTC-00020501
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
[[Page 26898]]
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,
patsy rowzee
p.o. box 323
slagle, LA 71475
MTC-00020502
From: Ted Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to register my dissatisfaction with the DoJ-Microsoft
Settlement as it currently stands. I've been a personal computer
user for 25 years and an instructor for eight and I've seen
countless examples of how Microsoft has acquired and then abused
it's monopoly power in operating systems. Microsoft's actions have
clearly, in my view, hindered, not advanced the cause of innovation.
Microsoft has not created but flouted computing and networking
standards, to its own individual advantage. It appeared ample
evidence of this was presented at trial.
What we are seeing in the current proposed settlement is not
"justice," but money at work.
Microsoft should be assessed substantial penalties for its
behavior and should be prevented by a fair settlement from
continuing to abuse its market position, something it shows, at
present, every evidence of meaning to continue.
Ted A Compton
12 Walnut St.
Greenfield, MA 01301
MTC-00020503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:30am
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,
Diane Davis
523 Foxen Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
MTC-00020504
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:39am
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,
Fred & Ginny Gates
210 Poplar Street
Monroeville, PA 15146-4004
MTC-00020505
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:27am
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,
ronald fabretti
1205 hon falls 5 pts rd
honeoye falls, NY 14472
MTC-00020506
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:30am
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,
Diane Davis
523 Foxen Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
MTC-00020507
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:36am
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,
Sandy McDonough
4420 Lorraine
Dallas, TX 75205
MTC-00020508
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 26899]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:34am
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,
John Maxwell
82 Sussex Rd
Clifton, NJ 07012-2016
MTC-00020509
From: Martin Kiewitz
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I'm a german software developer, so I'm not an american citizen.
I don't know, if this matters, but I want to say something about the
proposed Microsoft Settlement.
I read a comprehension on another site and I read the whole one.
I noticed that the settlement does not mention the sabotage that
Microsoft did some years ago, when releasing Microsoft Windows 95.
Those days, they wanted to rule the DOS world. Several other
competitioner DOS versions were out. Just to mention one: Caldera
DOS.
Because Windows 95 was actually running *under* DOS, Microsoft
installed a little extra API. I mean, API is a huge word. They
actually implemented about 400 Bytes of Code (!) that's really tiny
in size, to detect MS-DOS 7.0. If this was not found by Windows 95,
it gave error messages, as if the underlying DOS wouldn't be able to
run Windows 95.
In fact it was. Caldera wrote a little TSR (means a software
program that stays in memory and is able to implement another API or
fix one) that enabled Caldera DOS users to run Windows 95 under
their DOS.
So Microsoft was actually connecting their MS-DOS 7 to their
Windows 95, so that other competitioners would get out of business
and actually they succeeded. Caldera sued Microsoft for this and
here is the result:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/archive/final4.html
Quote: "Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by
Microsoft."
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.
I have another example of mine. I developed a multi-boot-loader,
which means an exchange software program that is loaded prior to the
Operating System. Currently it's still Public Beta, but that's not
the point.
In the last version release, someone tried it out on Windows
2000/NT, but it didn't work. The strange thing was that it works
with all Operating Systems available (including BeOS, OS/2, eCS,
Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME, All DOS Versions).
Now I found out that their Operating Systems based on the NT-
line (which means NT/2000/XP) look for a specific operation code
*AT* the location of the boot-loader.
It's difficult to explain that one to non-technical experienced
people. In fact they check for the first operation code issues in
the boot-loader for CLI. CLI disables interrupts on x86 computers
and it's of no use.
First I thought that this would be "crazy" and
couldn't be. Then I tried it out by inserting that CLI into my
programs code and Windows 2000/NT didn't go crazy, but they worked.
This CLI-checking is not listed anywhere. It was found by other
boot-loader programers. Actually it has the only purpose to make it
harder for custom boot-loader writers. It's another of those
incompatibilities.
The standards of that space on the harddrive is defined and the
CLI was not included. If you want to check for yourself, here is the
address to download my boot-loader: http://kiewitz.ath.cx/
KiewitzSoft.
I can send you a program that simply removes the CLI and you
could see Windows 2000 going berserk, which actually means it will
Load and Save the profile in an endless loop. This behaviour is not
in any way related and can not be related directly to the CLI. If I
execute the CLI one operation code later, the whole mess isn't
changing, so it's really actual checking for this opcode.
These are things that Microsoft does the whole time and I don't
want them to continue with that behaviour.
Thank you for reading.
Martin Kiewitz
MTC-00020510
From: pberry2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pathetic settlement. The 9 states have it right. I object to the
settlement, as it does NOT go far enough, and actually opens the new
market of schools to the monopoly that is Microsoft.
If we must do a settlement, which I read as a political buy out,
at least invest in Open Source (GNU/Linux and the LGPL BSD's) for
about 10%, use 20% for infrastructure support, and spend 70% on
hardware. Microsoft pays only money, not products.
Microsoft mandates hardware and software upgrades very often, as
that is the nature of a greedy monopoly, to require the consumer to
spend more money, often. Microsoft products are bulky, insecure, and
contain weaknesses not present, or long since rectified in the Open
Source products.
Do your job, and serve the greater need of education, and the
public, by encouraging the competitive environment through support
of the Open Source movement.
Sincerely,
Patrick T. Berry, USAF (Ret.)
1955 Casslewood St.
Winter Park, Fl 32792
MTC-00020511
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:33am
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,
BRET VINCENT
3721 IVYDALE DRIVE
ANNANDALE, VA 22003
MTC-00020512
From: Gary Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
24 January, 2002
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
RE: Microsoft Settlement
For the sake of our future, please pursue the Microsoft
situation vigorously.
While its roots lie in the good soil of hard work and
competition, Microsoft has since become overgrown and now depends on
the thorns of predatory practices to overcome those who would hope
to compete fairly. Many fine companies, and, worse, many talented
individuals, have been crushed by Microsoft's willingness to
undermine the prices charged by even the most modest competitors; to
preemptively strike at consumer and investor confidence in
potentially competitive products; and to bully those who survive its
other tactics out of the marketplace.
Microsoft did much in the past to help create and build the
technology industry, but has since turned from innovation to
reaction,
[[Page 26900]]
often adopting and ultimately controlling the intellectual
developments of others rather than competing on the basis of its own
creativity. The dreams of those who might be inspired to develop
competing products languish under the pall of Microsoft's
demonstrated willingness to prevent competition. The future of the
industry, and perhaps of those who depend on it, is in jeopardy if
the free market continues to be negated by Microsoft's monopolistic
practices.
Gary Fisher
Pearline, MI. USA
MTC-00020513
From: Scott (038) Elizabeth Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Don't sink Apple! Letting MS provide "free" stuff to
a market Apple has a good presence in will result in entirely the
opposite outcome-domination by MS. Please make sure the MS
does not gain a State sponsored marking coup!
Thanks
Scott Manning
Australia
MTC-00020514
From: Richard de los Santos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree with the proposed settle that Microsoft has been
sentenced to pay. In reality it is not punishment at all. It will
only allow Microsoft to tighten its hold on the education market.
Many Schools are trying to move to Open Source because of the
draconian practices of Microsoft.
What Microsoft needs to do it pay (CASH) large sums of money to
a foundation that will properly distribute it to schools that need
it. Doing this will allow districts to purchase the hardware and
software that they NEED and want.
Look at the schools that are already having problems with
Microsoft. For many they are having to pay large fines for
"piracy". The piracy is simply a result of not being
able to afford the packages Microsoft offers or not being supplied
appropriate assistance in using the applications correctly. The
country's school systems are bad enough without corporate lawyers
breathing down the back of their necks.
MTC-00020515
From: Davidson, Gareth (Unknown)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 6:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am completely disgusted with the way that Microsoft has acted
over their years of play, so before this feedback period expires I'd
like to get my oar in, have my say as it were . . . split
em up! here's why I think that Microsoft should be chopped up
-"nobbling" other DOS systems back in the day (the
alpha/beta windows that was fixed so it wouldn't run on a competing,
better DOS)
-selling the most compromised, insecure server software on the
planet-with enough disclaimer legislation to cover their backs
so they don't even need to make it any more secure
-trying to kill JavaScript by bringing out "Microsoft
Jscript"-LAME!
-making J++ compiled code unusable in other operating systems
-killing poor old Nutscrape Navigator, just cos they wanted an
internet based OS (they knew they'd be sued later)
-adding all those non-standard features to FrontPage and
Iexplore that other browsers couldn't read-effectively making
the web harder to browse on non M$ platforms
-leaving all those ports open for attack on home
systems-why o why?
-making licensing laughable by providing home users with 50
page UELAs-I mean, who actually reads that stuff any more? (I
USED to)
-making HOME USERS have to pay separate licenses for each home
m$ xp installations . . . now that is a joke-they
expect ppl to respect this?
-killing my Amiga and all the other better os's than windows
(ok perhaps this is a personal grudge)
-they should be chopped for ms c++ alone-making a simple
dll file from 2,000 bytes of code is 300,000 bytes long-same
code in Borland c++ is 30,000 bytes.
-the price of m$ office, and the incompatibilities with any/
all other office packages. this is unacceptable.
there's a million reasons, this is just the ones that irritate
me the most. m$ are unfair, money grabbing scum. I don't care if
they rip businesses off, specially if they can afford it-its
when they apply the same tactics to home users that really gets my
back up thx for hearing this
Gareth
MTC-00020516
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:45am
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,
Ronald Scalone
124 Farmington Dr
Woodstock, GA 30188-1834
MTC-00020517
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After hearing of the AOL lawsuit against Microsoft, I decided to
send you a few comments. I have been on the internet for a few years
now through AT&T World Net service. When I applied I was given a
choice of browsers, either Netscape or Internet Explorer. At that
time I chose Netscape. While surfing the Internet later I learned
that I could also use Internet Explorer to connect through World
Net. After using both browsers for an extended period of time, it
became evident that the Internet Explorer browser by Microsoft was
more dependable and seemed to be more flexible to use. I have been
using it for the past two years. My point is that given open
competition, Microsoft has proven to be the more superior browser,
and I feel that AOL has filed a frivolous lawsuit.
Larry LaGraize
[email protected]
MTC-00020518
From: nqjon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to register a negative opinion on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. Most non-Microsoft employees would agree, that as long
as any one company retains Microsoft's current monopoly-scale market
share in any one of the following industry sectors:
1) Office Productivity Suites
2) Operating Systems
3) Internet Software (Explorer, IIS)
4) Programming Languages (Visual Studio Suite)
. . . That company will, under any marginally
competent CEO, be able to quickly re-leverage monopoly control of
the entire computer industry. For more detailed commentary on the
more egregious ways in which the current proposed settlement is
completely ineffective, please refer to www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Newquist
Kearney, Nebraska
MTC-00020519
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:43am
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
[[Page 26901]]
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,
Joseph Carrier
4402 Parker
Dearborn Heights, MI 48125-2235
MTC-00020520
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:43am
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,
Ellie Handley
9614 Boonsboro Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78245-1906
MTC-00020521
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:54am
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,
Ronald DeFilippo
15 Pine St
Ayer, MA 01432
MTC-00020522
From: Mike Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not feel that the penalty phase of the trial adequately
addressed the severity of the crime committed.
I do feel that Microsof is continuing to engage in the same
behavior with the bundling of Windows Media Player, et al, in
Windows.
I do feel that the penalties from this trial should include a
very significant fine for past transgressions and a means to prevent
Microsoft from acting in a similar manner in the future.
Give the penalty phase some teeth. Please. Free us from this
innovation-stifling corporation.
Thank-you.
Mike Miller
24 Cherry Lane
Bethel, CT 06801
MTC-00020523
From: Wilhelm Svenselius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
I believe the current proposed settlement to the DOJ-Microsoft
antitrust suit is an excellent way to end the case, something which
is long overdue. Please do not listen to the misguided souls trying
to tell you the settlement is a bad idea.
Sincerely,
Wilhelm Richard Svenselius
MTC-00020524
From: WrittenWord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor:
Microsoft is an American success story, the same kind of
American success story found in the Horatio Alger tales, which used
to be so popular in America. Mr. Gates overcame tremors adversity to
make a better "mousetrap." All of us are the richer
because of it.
Are we to now seize this man's property, either through outright
confiscation of his business or by means of fines, limitations and
regulations??! Mr.
Gates-has not forced anyone-to buy his product.
People have chosen the MS OS because *it is better*-easier to
use, relatively stable, supremely flexible, cost effective,
etc.-than anything offered by the competition (who, instead of
fairly and freely competing with Microsoft, have chosen to complain
to the government).
Because of that, Mr. Gates was able to introduce his internet
browser, MSIE, to millions of people. Mr. Gates-once
again-*did not force anyone* to use his browser. We the
consumer -chose- to use it because, once again, it was
*overwhelmingly superior* to the competitions". Placing MSIE
in his Windows OS amounted to *an option*--not a
command-.
Such "options" are what allows the consumer a
choice; such "options" are the products of innovation,
which we have held as an American virtue since this republics
inception, proudly referring to it as "Yankee
ingenuity."
Are we to now punish Mr. Gates for that? Are we to now listen to
those who, for lack of vision or for want of ambition, could not
successfully compete with Microsoft??!
If so, then this is no longer the country of Horatio Alger. This
is no longer the nation that lauds achievement; a nation that is no
longer the land of opportunity where men and women can "beat a
path to the door" of those who make a better mousetrap.
It is no longer a nation of laws that defends the rights of all,
-including- the rich; it has become, instead, a nation
that rewards the incompetent by looting his superior; that
denigrates achievement in the name of envy; a nation that, in short,
has come to be ruled by men who, seeking the fruits of men's labor,
violate the rights of the rich in the name of the poor-thereby
destroying the rights of all, rich *and* poor alike.
I am not in any way religious, but I pray to whatever god there
may be that you have both the wisdom and the courage to uphold the
Jeffersonian principles of our republic and dismiss the case against
Microsoft. If you do not, we will all be, not only poorer because of
it, but also-and most importantly-no longer free.
Very truly yours,
Steven Brockerman, MS
Adjunct Professor of English
3201-C Oriole Ct.
Tallahassee, FL 32308
850-523-0671
[email protected]
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-Thomas Jefferson
MTC-00020525
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:45am
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,
[[Page 26902]]
Wayne Sparks
506 kirkwood Ave
Winthrop Harbor, IL 60096-1247
MTC-00020526
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:49am
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,
David Monahan
71 Canton St.
Manchester, NH 03103-3507
MTC-00020527
From: Marsha Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:51am
Subject: Stop the Lawsuits
Leave Microsoft alone. It's been terrible for the economy and I
feel they have done nothing wrong. So, let them hide their browser
and be done with them! They have done so much for technology and
they have just been punished for their innovations because of
jealous companies. Drop the suit and please be done with microsoft.
Sincerely,
Marsha Harrison
MTC-00020528
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:01am
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,
Jerome BOLT
PO BOX 167
ROCKPORT, TX 78381-0167
MTC-00020529
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:58am
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,
Donald DESMEDT
122 West 14TH Street
BAYONNE, NJ 07002
MTC-00020530
From: John Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:02am
Subject: GET OUT OF MICROSOFT'S WAY.
THE ONLY "CRIME" COMMITTED BY MICROSOFT IS THAT IT
HAS SUPPLIED ITS CUSTOMERS MORE VALUE AT A LOWER PRICE THAN ITS
COMPETITORS. SINCE IT DOESN'T USE GUNS, HOW ELSE CAN IT DOMINATE OR
CONTROL A MARKET, AND HOW ELSE CAN IT "UNFAIRLY" DESTROY
COMPETITORS. PRODUCING MORE VALUE FOR LESS SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME.
GET OUT OF MICROSOFT'S WAY.
JOHN DAWSON.
CC:Dawson at optushome
MTC-00020531
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:00am
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,
Carl Strand
N4125 E Powell Lake Rd
P.O. Box 510
Munising, MI 49862
MTC-00020532
From: Kathy K.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00020532-0001
Enough, enough 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," states the AOCTP,
"not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever
seen."
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
STOP THE MICROSOFT WITCH HUNT.
Clinton is no longer the President! It is time to move on.
Thank you.
Kathy and David Kaczmarczyk
MTC-00020533
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:01am
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
[[Page 26903]]
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,
Patrick Fenerty
PO Box 1310
Madison, VA 22727
MTC-00020534
From: Howard Allen Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not think that the Microsoft Settlement remedies, or will
prevent a reoccurrence of, some of Microsoft's business practices
that cause the most harm to its competitors and the public.
Microsoft should be required to publicly release the APIs to all
current versions of Windows and enough of the source code to permit
competitors to write computer programs that:
1. Can compete with Microsoft products on a level playing field
if they run under Windows. For example, I fear that Microsoft's
application programmers get advance or more detailed knowledge of
"hooks" or hidden features in Windows so they can
optimize their programs better than the competitors.
2. Can run under other operating systems in order to run
programs originally written to be run under Windows under those
other, non-Windows operating systems. For example, Linux users
should be able to run most Windows application programs with the
help of Wine (Wine is a project that makes it possible to run
Windows application on Linux and is being developed by open source
developers-see http://www.winehq.com/).
Currently, Microsoft conceals information needed to most
effectively do this. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
may even make attempting to reverse engineer Windows to discover
this information illegal.
Also, I note that the trial court's findings of fact define
"API" to mean the interfaces between application
programs and the operating system, while in the settlement, this
term means 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 court's
definition should be used in order to implement the suggestion in my
paragraph 2 above.
If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to call
me. Thank you for your consideration.
Howard Allen Cohen, Esq.
Computer, eCommerce, & Internet Law
Florida Board Certified Real Estate Attorney
Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A.
Hollywood, Florida
Office E-mail: [email protected]
Weekend E-mail: [email protected]
Tel. (954) 925-5501; (305) 944-1882 (Miami-Dade)
Fax: (954) 920-2711
MTC-00020535
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:07am
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,
Bob Fleming
824 S 3rd
Texhoma, OK 73949-0685
MTC-00020536
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:11am
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,
Kathy Lowry
1715 griffin gate road
Louisville, KY 40205
MTC-00020537
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:05am
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,
JEAN BERRY
3172 VIRGINIA ST
MIAMI, FL 33133
MTC-00020538
From: Dale Curren
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/24/02 7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree!!!
Do not settle!!
Dale Curren
Java-Powered Polarbar 1.21 & eCS
MTC-00020539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:02am
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,
david spinelli
217 w 5th
po box 427
aurelia, IA 51005-0427
MTC-00020540
From: Polly J. Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Department of Justice: Let it be, let it be! The microsoft
settlement to hide their Internet explorer icon provides a fair
playing field for other servers. Get on with finishing up with this
expensive litigation with
[[Page 26904]]
Microsoft. The Computer users have had enought.
Polly Townsend
MTC-00020541
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:12am
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,
Kathy Lowry
1715 griffin gate road
Louisville, KY 40205
MTC-00020542
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:15am
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,
Roberta Jordan
FL 33594
MTC-00020543
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
we, the people are tired of this endless litigation.
This settlement is good for consumers and the economy and we
expect the government to settle as proposed.
Christina Assal
West Palm Beach, Florida
MTC-00020544
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:12am
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,
Lucille Weber
415 W. Main St.
Twin Lakes, WI 53181-9220
MTC-00020545
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:11am
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,
Lawrence Gardner
829 W.6th Ave
Shakopee, MN 55379
MTC-00020546
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:15am
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,
Linda Sorci
1501 NW 79th Terrace
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
MTC-00020547
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:20am
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,
David Zickefoose
10314 Washington Drive
Omaha, NE 68127
MTC-00020548
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:20am
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
[[Page 26905]]
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,
Torello Tacchi
15312 Cape Dr. S.
Jacksonville, FL 32226
MTC-00020549
From: Michael W. Cocke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has all but destroyed initiative and the drive for
technical excellence in the computer industry, and all you're going
to do is shake your finger at them and say "bad
Microsoft".
Why don't you do something useful? Make them publish, and adhere
to the published, APIs? THAT would be a USEFUL punishment!
Michael W. Cocke
MTC-00020550
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:20am
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,
Elizabeth Filiatreau
1817 Foxboro Road
La Grange, KY 40031-9246
MTC-00020551
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:19am
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,
john cochrane
443 page st
orlando, FL 32806
MTC-00020552
From: Gert Jan Timmerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As consumer and a customer it is my opinion that the settlement
reached between the government and Microsoft is a fair settlement. I
think that it should stand.
Greetings,
Gert Jan Timmerman
The Netherlands
MTC-00020553
From: Judson Drennan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should be split up. There's just no two ways around a
monopoly. How hard is that to see?
MTC-00020554
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:24am
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,
Joyce Pepin
10 Jill Alison Circle
Ormond Beach, FL 32176
MTC-00020555
From: Juli(00E1)n Corcuera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the current Microsoft settlement does little or nothing
to guarantee that Microsoft will no longer be a predatory monopoly.
I am not an expert in any area of computer science, but it is
patently obvious to me that the settlement is woefully inadequate;
the current settlement does nothing but endorse Microsoft's current
attitude. This case is not about what has happened in the past... It
is about what will happen in the future, and suggesting that
Microsoft's past actions merit anything but an exemplary punishment
bodes ill for the future.
I am a US citizen, but have lived overseas most of my life, and
I must say that this kind of a settlement puts the US judicial
system in a very poor light. From a foreigner's perspective it seems
like Microsoft is above the law.
Juli?n Corcuera
MTC-00020556
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:24am
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.
There are times that things happen that in the long run are of
great help in developing technology and this is one of them.
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.
I do not see where it has harmed myself in any way as I still
use netscape and other outside software and never have any problems
so I simply think this has gone on far enough and it is time to stop
the states from mooching off me and a large company that has helped
to turn the computer into a usuable tool.
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,
Keath Rhymer
5843 Price Ct
Indianapolis, IN 46254-2819
MTC-00020557
From: Vincent Ohare
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 6:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vincent Ohare
25 heathdene
London, CA 60603
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
[[Page 26906]]
You stupid bastards should fuck off and find something
productive to do!
Sincerely,
Vincent OHare (UK)
MTC-00020558
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:27am
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,
John Goben
4009 Britt Lane
Louisville, KY 40219-4313
MTC-00020559
From: James Massingill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am writing this short letter in order to give a small sample
of what the general American Public thinks about the Microsoft anti-
trust suit. First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not a
big fan of Microsoft, nor do I completely agree with all its
tactics. However, Microsoft as a company has a right to give it's
customers innovative new software.
The fact that it's operating systems are integrated with a web
browser should be a non-player in the lawsuit filed against them.
Their goal to have the Operating System and the Internet as one
seamless integrated technology is innovative and brilliant as are
most of the "forward thinking" the company has come up
with. Since their are other Internet Browsers and tools on the
market which can be and are purchased separately, there is no real
problem here. To build an anti-trust case on this premise is a
farce.
As an Operating System, Microsoft does have it's competitors.
These competitors include Macintosh, Several Brands of Linux, and
Sun OS to name a few. One can not maintain that Microsoft has a
monopoly, because this is simply not true. In actuality Linux has
been gaining in popularity over the last several years and is a top
seller in the software market. Therefore, states do not have a leg
to stand on when stating Microsoft is a monopoly.
In the software arena, such as games, utilities, etc Microsoft
does not even have huge chunk of sales.
There are many companies and competitors out there and I
seriously doubt that Microsoft really wants to edge everyone out of
that business, it would be impossible. Realistically, I, as a
consumer, believe that the states in this suit do not have a very
good case at all. I also believe this suit should end has soon as
possible. I believe the states involved should stop trying to punish
a company for being innovative, and stop using hard earned tax money
for causes such as this.
sincerely,
James Massingill
San Antonio, TX
MTC-00020560
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:24am
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,
DAVID LANDIS
147 MEADOW COURT
SINKING SPRING, PA 19608
MTC-00020561
From: Eileen Rochniak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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.
Mrs. Eileen Rochniak
34 Trelawne Drive
Rochester, NY 14622-1424
MTC-00020562
From: Mike Stilz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A comment on the proposed settlement-
I personally firmly think that the Government is being far to
soft on Microsoft. That company has done more from it's position of
power to limit growth in the PC industry and slow (or stop) the
introduction of innovative, better, technology solutions then anyone
can ever imagine ... even with what's come out in the trial. No one
company should be in such a position, not to mention that the
industry, the US economy, and my shares of MS stock would be far
better off if they were broken up into several businesses.
Mike Stilz
3120 Helmsdale
Lexington, KY. 40509
speaking for myself
MTC-00020563
From: smr71@aolcom@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:26am
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,
Steven Royer
R.R.1
Tipp City, OH 45371
MTC-00020564
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:33am
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.
[[Page 26907]]
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,
Horace Francis
6937 Lovers Lane
Portage, MI 49002-3609
MTC-00020565
From: Owen O'Leary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust case, I feel that the proposed settlements will only
increase Microsoft's monopoly standing.
Owen O'Leary
2550 3rd Ave #621
Seattle, WA 98121
MTC-00020566
From: stephensonnorman @hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:35am
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,
Norman Stephenson
176 Five Oaks Lane
Hickory, NC 28601
MTC-00020567
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:33am
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,
Stephen Haynes
5300 Ocean Blvd.
Apt 904
Sarasota, FL 34242-3325
MTC-00020568
From: Robert Veenstra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reading through the proposed final judgement, I believe it
leaves out some crucial points and narrows some definitions to the
point that Microsoft can effectively "work around" the
ruling.
There is no consideration given to licensing issues pertaining
to running Windows programs on Linux.
Thank you for your time,
Rob Veenstra
Software Engineer II
Siemens Dematic
MTC-00020569
From: Terry Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is already in violation of stipulation 2 with regard
to H. of the REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGEMENT with its shipment of
Windows XP.
Specifically, it is not possible to deinstall all Microsoft
Internet Explorer middleware components from a Windows XP system,
since this middleware is used in order to force user registration
with Microsoft of the computer, including disclosing information
about the computers configuration, and other private information of
the user.
A Windows XP system with these components removed will operate
for a period of thirty (30) days, after which it will cease
operation.
This is clearly non-compliant with Section III.H.1. (removal of
Microsoft Middleware by the user) and Section III.H.2. (Substitution
of non-Microsoft Middleware by the user).
- T
MTC-00020570
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:32am
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,
Marilyn Smit
1425 Eagle Ridge Road
Glencoe, MO 63038-2419
MTC-00020571
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:33am
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 Widenor
1919 Robert Drive
Champaign, IL 61821-6026
MTC-00020572
From: snadge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi there,
just a voice to add to many: Microsoft bundle useless and
resource grabbing components to an operating system which shouldn't
happen,
these "add ons" should be optional extras in any
sane world. The Netscape issue is disgusting, Internet Explorer is
part of the operating system and whatever is said can't be removed,
only upto 98me have you any chance of having a windows free of IE or
it's drivers, for that you must purchase 3rd party sofware even then
some shadow of it's install still rears it's ugly head.
If Microsoft are not to be broke up you are sorely failing in
your jobs, where are we supposed to get legal support against these
coporate monopolies forcing no choice amonst people, yes you can
install an alternitive media player into windows to play your media
clips but media player is still installed and booted up forcing
"the operating system" to load all it's drivers and
codecs ( wasting system resources),
[[Page 26908]]
once again this is another element of monopolisation. After the
anti trust trials we now have windows XP with everything and it's
brother embedded into the operating system, just look now you have
cd writing software aswell embedded into the operating system,
surely Microsoft are now taking the mick out yourselves because they
can. Did they listen at all?
I now have no faith at all with the law, it seems you have far
to much power against the person with nothing yet allow corruption
in high places, next job maybe you will tell the RIAA to go and jump
with their ridiculous demands and also sort out the mindfield of
intellectual property which at the moment is pointless and also do
nothing except cost people more money see Microsoft patenting years
old ideas for their own gain and charging ridiculous licenseing
fees, I think not, the corporations make you scared don't they, far
to much power and money to pay for fancy word weasels.
regards John
MTC-00020573
From: [email protected]. argogroup.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:40am
Subject: MS antitrust
Dear Sir/Madam
I am dissapointed in the proposed settlement. It does not go far
enough in preventing Microsoft restrict the freedom of its users.
Yours
Stephen Foster
MTC-00020574
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:38am
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,
Robert Garrett
27 High St
Guilford, ME 04443-0205
MTC-00020575
From: Steve Faure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a US citizen opposed to the proposed anti-trust settlement
with Microsoft Corporation.
Their actions have damaged opportunities in the computer
industry.
-Steve Faure
Austin, TX
MTC-00020576
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:38am
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,
Pamela Lawler
1010 John Anderson Drive
Ormond Beach, FL 32176
MTC-00020577
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:37am
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,
Joe Langley
9 Beaver Dan Rd
Kite, GA 31049
MTC-00020578
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:38am
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,
Thomas Grady
69 Gallup Hill Road
Ledyard, CT 06339
MTC-00020579
From: Michelle A. Hoyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a slap in the face of the supposed
ideal of the fairness of justice. Turning around and giving
Microsoft the legal blessing to force themselves into a market where
they're not currently dominating is not a punishment; it's a reward.
Hurt them financially and hurt them hard, by making them: -pay
real money, not useless software which doesn't cost them anything to
give away. -divorce their operating systems division from the
rest of their software enterprises.
If this were a telephone company, they'd have been long gone by
now.
Yours truly,
Michelle A. Hoyle
Michelle A. Hoyle, VP Web Technologies, Canada
10714 106 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5H 0R1
N. America: 1-888-429-2363 UK: 020
7529 1465
International: +1 780 429 2363
MTC-00020580
From: Lee Sherrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43am
Subject: AOL Bullshit ! Typical
The only reason that I am writing this letter is due to the fact
that I can not stand AOL! I have used AOL before and found it to be
nothing but a money-grubbing over rated search engine. There are
many search engines out there that are a much better service and
they are free! If the DoJ wants to go after a company that clearly
looks after one thing and it is not the consumer, it's themselves!
They overcharge for a service that is not as good as they like to
project. The last time that I used AOL I downloaded their program
onto my computer and used it for a while. I did not like the way it
worked and quit the service, at least I thought I did. For months
[[Page 26909]]
after I left the program they tried to charge me for services I
never used and never would have used. I tried to get their program
out of my computer and it took 8 months and several trips deep into
my hard drive to find all of the little cookies and things embedded.
I had to go to a computer specialist to finally get all of it
removed from my HD. I have heard this same story from many of my
friends and customers of my business.
I believe in the free enterprise system. I own my own company. I
have always believed that a company has to EARN the profits that it
goes after not have it given to them from the government. Honest,
fair trade, consumer confidence, are words of the free enterprise
system that generate a successful business. AOL does not do that.
They are losing their customer confidence, honest business practices
is not in their game plan and fair trade is a concept that never
passes through the front doors at AOL. Any time a company trys to do
a little competition with AOL they either buy them out or try to
destroy them or as with the Microsoft affair, they hit the courts
first with all of the legal crap to blind everyone to just what they
are really up to. I think that the good ol paid off government
officials need to really do the job they were elected into by the
tax payers and start looking the other direction. Look right at AOL
and the other companies like AOL. Leave Microsoft alone and let them
get back to doing what they do- develop software!
I am one of a quite large group that remember what happened back
when cable TV came over the horizon and tried to make it where there
was not going to be any more free TV. Congress finally said that the
tax payers had years invested in the system and they had a right to
free TV. So free TV stayed around. We believe the same thing. The
consumers (taxpayers) have invested years and many dollars in the
phone lines, cable lines, telephone poles, those fancy little things
floating around up there in space that help TV and Telephone and
cell phones around the world. We are working for the need of free
internet service, congress will need a little help to realize this
as they needed help on the TV issue.
AOL makes very nice profits. They need to have a little good old
fashioned competition. Learn how to cut back in the proper areas to
make profit work in their favor. Not go out and use the government
and the fools in the government to remove their competition so that
they can have a government induced monopoly. As a Tax Payer and
consumer and small business owner, I am very sick and tired of these
Billion dollar companies crying and whining about losing money
because another company is just competing against them. These
Billion dollar companies get the government to take away their
compeditors, so they can make more profits. They get millions from
the government in subsidies to help them make more profits.
They get the government to force the consumer into a corner so
the consumer is forced to buy their products at very inflated
prices.
All I am trying to get across to you in the DoJ is look the
other way. Start looking at AOL and the others that forced the suit
against Microsoft.
Thanks
A concerned and frustrated tax payerGet more from the Web. FREE
MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
MTC-00020581
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:40am
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. Maybe you haven't noticed, but AOL (representing
Netscape)has brought suit against Microsoft. This is the way it
should have been in the 1st place instead of using tax payer dollars
to settle this alleged grievance.
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,
Herb Miller
175 Belleview Road
Taft, TN 38488
MTC-00020582
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:41am
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,
Dan Cochrane
774 B Street
Yuba City, CA 95991-4926
MTC-00020583
From: Aaron Petry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed "remedy" will do nothing to improve the
situation. If the DOJ prosecuted accused terrorists like the are
prosecuting Microsoft, they'd create a solid and unassailable case
proving that the accused are guilty, then recommend that they be let
go, as long as they promise to only blow up half as many buildings.
MS is a monopoly. Treat it like one and protect the citizens of the
United States from their illegal and anti-competitive practices. Or,
to phrase it differently, do your job instead of being a Microsoft
patsy.
MTC-00020584
From: richard sumner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43am
Subject: microsoft settlement
MTC-00020584-0001
It is time you, our government start letting our society operate
as it was intended by the signers of the Constitution.
You now need to stop finding ways to penalize and tax buiness
like microsoft because they were making money.
The justice department has stepped over theline by trying to
make laws that the only reason is to add money to the coffers.
To honestly be able to do that, it needs to be able to show us
the population where every dollar taxed went.It could very easily
reduce itself by two percent a year for the next ten years and,
still give the same services given now. What is being said is that
the government is way out of whack and, it is the corrupt entity
here.
01/29/2002 9:48 1
MTC-00020585
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:38am
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,
John Orth
8812 Chartwell Cir
Wichita, KS 67205
MTC-00020586
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 26910]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:41am
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,
Bill Bull
210 Cedar Road
Vista, CA 92083-5119
MTC-00020587
From: Maynard, Garth
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am not a big fan of the findings of fact in the Microsoft
case. However, the proposed settlement does not address the issues
that brought the case to trial, and it does not address the findings
of fact. I do not know if Microsoft is truly a monopoly, but I do
know that the proposed settlement has the effect of negating the
courts previous findings. In essence, if the settlement is allowed
to go forward, it will not change the situation any more than if the
higher courts had reversed the lower courts ruling. To address the
ruling that Microsoft used its monopoly status to unfairly harm
competition, it should be forced into two actions. First, Microsoft
must make their OS source code available to everyone, without
restrictions, at the same time it makes the source code available to
the application programmers within its own company. Second, it must
agree to bundle anyone's software in the same virtual location that
they bundle their own, for any software developer who requests it.
In other words, if MS wants to bundle their IE browser on the
desktop with the release of their new OS product, then anyone who
wishes, such as Netscape for example, must be given the opportunity
to include their browser on the desktop as well. This way, any
competing product will have the same chance as the MS product. If MS
fails to comply, it must either pay damages to the company that was
left out of the release or pay the reasonable expenses for
advertising that would allow the competing product to gain an
equivalent advantage to being bundled with the OS.
The issue at hand only deals with products that are not a part
of the core OS. As such, MS would not be harmed by making the non-
competing portions of their OS available to the public. By allowing
all developers the same access to the operating system, and equal
access to the consumer on the desktop, Microsoft will be stymied in
any further attempts to use its position as a monopoly to discourage
competition.
Garth Maynard
2745 Trotters Walk Trail
Snellville, GA 30078
MTC-00020588
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:46am
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,
Carlton Worthman
6805N 750E
Ossian, IN 46777-9210
MTC-00020589
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43am
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,
Rex & Renee Lancaster
260 Clymer Road Hiawatha, IA 52233
MTC-00020590
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:45am
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,
John T. Bozarth
1014 Center Street
Lockhart, TX 78644
MTC-00020591
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43am
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,
Rex & Renee Lancaster
260 Clymer Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233
MTC-00020592
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43am
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
[[Page 26911]]
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,
Pamela Mitchell
PO Box 267
Salisbury, NH 03268-0267
MTC-00020593
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:44am
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,
William Goeltz
10102 E. Paseo San Bernardo
Tucson, AZ 85747
MTC-00020594
From: Maanum, Dale A
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
This settlement is a bad idea. It certainly looks as though
Microsoft is buying their way out of this one.
Providing PC's and software in lieu of some other means of
settlement is just perpetuating their monopoly.
Dale Maanum
3205 38 Av S
Minneapolis MN 55406-2144
MTC-00020595
From: Rick Robino
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter to you from a Windows computer, as a
computer professional. My qualifications provide me with an insight
that might not be common among the general public, yet I believe
they are pertinent to the case settlement pending for Microsoft.
In the interest of brevity, I will state my comment briefly:
Microsoft has broken the spirit of many of our laws with it's
implicit and consciously strategized monopolistic practices, and
where there is no law yet in areas of emerging technology they have
taken advantage of their abscence, to the detriment of users,
businesses, and government. Microsoft has managed to escape all
responsibility for the weak Security it has created.
Microsoft apparently believes it is above the law and too
influential to be prosecuted. A settlement that involves the U.S.
government in aiding Microsoft to expand and continue these
practices by eliminating the competition which has hereforeto kept
their products from leading in the Education market would be an
absolute shame. Microsoft has hurt the advance and prosperity of
every other business in the computer industry, simultaneously
forcing the choices of nearly every computer user in the U.S.
towards their own products. Our country depends on innovation and
competition, and our citizends depend on government to ensure a
truly free marketplace for the benefit of all. Our country has the
technological upper-hand for the moment, among all of the other
countries in the world. However, all of those countries realize that
their future, whether or not they will be prosperous, is staked on
technological superiority. Stagnated competition in one country will
give an edge to other countries wherein competition still provides
the impetus to improve the quality, availability, and price of
technology products.
I urge you to consider these factors and punish Microsoft for
abrogating competition, especially through the very proceedings
brought about to deal with their behavior. Please act in a way that
encourages a varied landscape of technology, especially computing,
by at least requiring that interfaces (not the actual source-code)
to the Windows operating systems be made available to all, where
both the content and price are the same for all
parties-Microsoft included. A break-up of the company where
the operating system only is developed by a single company, and
other products are developed in other Microsoft companies with no
more access to the API's than any other competitor would promote
this idea. Please, in no case create a settlement which aids and
abets the decline of competition, security, privacy, and diversity
in the U.S. technology market. Rewarding Microsoft by giving them a
strong foothold in the Education sector, at the expense of Apple,
Sun and others, is clearly not the correct course.
I hope that your organization remains without corruption and
remembers that the U.S. government is by, with and for the
-people- of this country. We are counting on your agency
as our representatives to be firm and truly fair, for this is a
critical moment in regard to our collective future.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Robino
Proprietor
Wave Division Consulting
MTC-00020596
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:50am
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,
Eugene Smith
59 Middleline Road
Ballston Spa, NY 12020-3405
MTC-00020597
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:47am
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,
Adrian Juergens
10523 Huff
Houston, TX 77031-1816
MTC-00020598
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:51am
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.
[[Page 26912]]
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,
Richard Ganzel
12952 Red Fox Rd
Rogers, MN 55374
MTC-00020599
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:48am
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,
TN 37601
MTC-00020600
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very much opposed to the proposed settlement. The specifics
have been well stated in an open letter by Dan Kegel at
www.kegel.com/remedy; I will not repeat them here. Thanks for the
opportunity to comment,
CR Jones
20 CR 661
Walnut Ms 38683
MTC-00020601
From: Carl Mannino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe Microsoft has hindered more than helped the technology
world. Companies like Apple, etc have had to play second fiddle,
protect the future of technology and US consumers, do the right
thing.
Carl Mannino
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020602
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:50am
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,
Clark Fuller
4926 York St.
Metairie, LA 70001-1036
MTC-00020603
From: David Personette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement allows Microsoft far to much
latitude in defining the terms of their settlement (IE what a
"bundled" application is). It further provides no firm
means of enforcing the vague rules imposed on Microsoft.
David Personettee-mail:[email protected]
MTC-00020604
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:51am
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,
Lillian Julian
1184 Satellite Circle
Upper St. Clair, PA 15241-3619
MTC-00020605
From: Thomas Allger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam, I feel that the Microsoft settlement is unfair
to the taxpayers and the corporations of the U.S. To allow a
monopolist such as Microsoft to have complete control over its own
marketplace is simply wrong.
A free market economy does not exist merely to allow everyone to
do as they please. A free market economy requires the rule of law to
allow freedom of entrance and exit to markets. It requires
transparency of information, something which the current settlement
does not require of Microsoft.
As a practical matter, the government's fumbling has allowed
Microsoft to establish a monopoly over a segment of the economy that
is crucial not only to the economy as a whole, but to national
security. If they were at least competant at writing software, we
wouldn't have the current level of insecurity with respect to
computer security. Not only has the government allowed its antitrust
laws to be violated, it has even allowed them to be violated by a
company whose software is dangerous. And then to allow this company
to lie in a federal court and construct a settlement with no teeth
after the company has been convicted leads one to suspect there is
collusion between Microsoft and the government. And it is your
fault.
The settlement should at the very least break Microsoft up so
that it can no longer threaten the software industry. Its officers
should held in contempt charges before U.S. courts for lying to a
federal court. The Justice dept has become a laughing stock among
those of us familiar with technology and not in thrall to Microsoft,
and that again is your fault.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, the rest of the
technology industry certainly is.
MTC-00020606
From: Gordon Doc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53am
Subject: mirosoft settlement
It would be a positive settlement for everyone to get this
behind the DOJ. While there is certainly some truth in allegations
against MS, it is akin to the tobacco settlement and prosecution
which, while altruistic in public scope, was really not much more
than a way for states and lawyers and the Gov. to get extra money to
balance their budgets.
Please understand that most people think that it has gone far
enough and that there are probably more relevant things with which
to concern yourself at the DOJ.
Sincerely,
JC Gordon
MTC-00020607
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
[[Page 26913]]
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,
Lionel Blum
22311 Armes Road
Saucier, MS 39574
MTC-00020608
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:52am
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,
Deborah Roisen-Case
101 Grant Street
Silverton , OR 97381
MTC-00020609
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:52am
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,
Nancy Fuller
4926 York St.
Metairie, LA 70001-1036
MTC-00020610
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:52am
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,
Loretta Gibson
1004 Vera Ct
Irving, TX 75060
MTC-00020611
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53am
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,
Linda Ryan
435 Irving Bluff Rd.
Shreveport, LA 71107
MTC-00020612
From: Steve Sielaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have worked in the technology field for years. I have seen
Microsoft crush the choices out of the industry. They have such a
strong share of the market that the prices have gone through the
roof for operating systems and programs. Now Microsoft is
intentionally losing millions to start taking over the home
entertainment industry through the X-box which costs $100 more to
produce then they are selling it for. I have seen the majority of
dangerous and costly viruses attacking the worlds computers because
the Microsoft programs are not secure, until it hurts market share.
I have seen Microsoft try to squash any movement of the people
that may move the country into a position of having choices. For
example I have read articles on how they sent internal memos out to
destroy java as a programming language.
I have also witnessed Microsoft's tactics of not conforming to
standards if they are the owners of a product that is predominating
in the market so they can further crush competition. For example
internet explorer does not conform to all the html standards and
Microsoft continually tried to institute new and Microsoft only
coding standards for web sites. At the same time they have publicly
criticized America Online for not creating and following strict
standards making sure they can take over the instant message
programs by including it in the operating system.
Microsoft is a giant that destroys competition. If they can do
it with a good product, well that is free enterprise. But it is my
personal feeling that they destroy competition through all means,
legal and otherwise. I feel that the economy will suffer long term
if Microsoft is not broken up. Also I think that flooding out
schools with Microsoft computers only ensures that they will have
much more future sells and is no good deal for the American people.
Steven Sielaff
MTC-00020613
From: Edward G. Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Publice Comment:
To Whom It May Concern at the Justice Department:
As a citizen 70 years old arriving in cyberspace about 8 years
after retiring, I suggest the settlement with Microsoft be as
stringent upon them as much as the law will allow. If the evidence
supports the charges as made, the maximum penalty should be issued
and enforced. As a relatively new comer to the use of computers, I
became aware of their absolute monopoly very early in simply trying
to decide whether or not my first computer should be an Apple or a
"IBM PC" type. I did a little research for the available
software and found the variety, cost and quantity of programs
available to me for purchase to be in a non scientifically estimated
ratio of about 8 to one in favor of
[[Page 26914]]
Microsoft products. In my opinion this could not have happened if
Microsoft had not intentionally cut corners in the applicable law
concerning buying and selling by making illegal arrangement with
certain software manufacturers. They cornered the market on software
and once done with that, proceded to tighten and enlarge the scope
of their control by tying up manufacturerers to the extent that as a
novice and new purchaser, any machine I bought came fully equiped
with factory installed Microsoft programs which if given a choice (
probably denied by agreements and conditions of sale between
Microsoft and the leading hardware mfgs) I might have , could have ,
etc. decided on a competitive product . Case in point
"Netscape Navigator" browser rather than "Internet
Explorer". I bought and paid for Netscape Navigator because I
was sore at being forced to except not only Internet Explorer for
openers, but other MS programs throughout the then present time and
following years-that list of pre loaded MS programs grew to include
such programs as "works, Money, and later AOL connections,
etc. all of which became "monster" widely used programs
particularly by new users which were increasing at exponential rates
every year. Further, these programs could not be deleted and they
consummed most of the available hard drive space. As far as I was
and am concerned, this literally was a fraud committed on the public
by a company committed to commanding the market by any means
possible. I say, if you have the facts which according to facts made
public-they should fined or "punished" to the applicable
limits of the law in the most practical way possible on behalf of
the millions of consumers so thoroughly screwed by these people. The
money fines should be turned over to the Treasury and EARMARKED (not
spent for anything else such as Congressional pork barrel projects-
and huge gifts made to, let me suggest the Salvation Army and the
United Appeal and the Federal disaster relief fund /FEMA
organization.
I hope someone actually reads these comments and seriously takes
them into consideration.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Robinson
2406 Oakwood Way
Smyrna, GA 30080
MTC-00020614
From: Warren Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: the Tunney Act
In my opinion, the proposed Microsoft settlement is not
acceptable. Microsoft has and continues to act in a predatory manner
that damages competition in nearly all areas of high-technology/
computing. It continues to work towards a comprehensive stranglehold
over all areas of software, including desktop productivity (word
processing, spreadsheets, presentations, databases, email and
scheduling) and operating systems. Small software companies that are
truly innovative (for instance, Netscape in its initial form) are
either squelched or acquired. Further, the software that Microsoft
sells in its currently monopoly-like state is bug-ridden and full of
security problems that compromise the work of the consumer in a
broad range of professions that depend on Microsoft's software
(being that there is essentially only one supplier). Microsoft has
no incentive due to competition to fix the bugs in its software, and
it uses the promise of fixing bugs as an incentive to the consumer
to purchase upgrades. In short, without valid and vigorous
competition in all areas of software development/sales, Microsoft
will eventually harm the economy through its malevolence and
incompetence.
Accordingly, the proposed settlement must be rejected.
Thank you,
Warren Beck
Disclaimer: the opinion stated in this email is a personal one;
no representation of the opinion of my employer, Michigan State
University, is intended.
Professor Warren F. Beck
Department of Chemistry
Michigan State University
3 Chemistry Building
East Lansing, Michigan 48824 USA
517-355-9715 x213
517-353-1793 (fax)
[email protected]
http://www.cem.msu.edu/beck
MTC-00020615
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:56am
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,
MARIE RIDDER
508 WOODCREST AVENUE
LITITA, PA 17543
MTC-00020616
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:56am
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,
Carl Martin
1401 NW 79th Street
Kansas City, MO 64118
MTC-00020617
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:54am
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,
GEORGE Hasenbein
4460 Suwanee Dam Road
Suwanee, GA 30024-1984
MTC-00020618
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:55am
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
[[Page 26915]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Hutson
406 Lincoln
Deer Park, TX 77536-6250
MTC-00020619
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:56am
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,
Donna Stefan
Rt.2; Box 21A
Bristol, WV 26332
MTC-00020620
From: Paul A. Kittle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
012402 @ 8:00 AM EST-
Comments-
I believe the US Government has expended large suns of money in
a wasteful manner chasing Microsoft in what is obviously a
competitor induced legal travesty-not even considering the new
AOL suit (just jumping on the bandwagon). Everyone concerned should
be interested in accepting the pending settlement, telling the other
states AGs to "do something worthwhile and forget
Microsoft" and allow the DoJ to concentrate on things that
really matter, like anthrax, terrorist, airline and infrastructure
safety. I really doubt that anything Microsoft might do could
compare to the 9/11 attacks, so please put your emphasis where it
will do some good for citizens, not Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and
AOL.
Thank you.
Regards,
Paul A. Kittle
[email protected]
http://www.aquafoam.com
Phone-610-804-0100
Fax-909-257-8266
MTC-00020621
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:55am
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,
Henry Crossfield, Jr.
1158 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10029-6917
MTC-00020622
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:57am
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,
Marcus Dixon
3 Ridgewood Road
Glen Rock, PA 17327-9794
MTC-00020623
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I realise as a UK resident, my opinions probably mean nothing to
you, however, I would appreciate it if you would hear me out. How
the "final solution" to Microsoft's monopoly position is
played out will have a crucial effect on the future of computing. No
matter what Microsoft may claim, they have never
"innovated" anything-almost every single product
of theirs can trace roots back to a former rival. Unless drastic
action is taken, Microsoft will be in a position to continue this
behaviour-and in the future it will be with the DOJ's implied
blessing. There are fewer competitors to Microsoft now than there
were 15, 10 or even 5 years ago. If things carry on in this vein, it
is conceivable (though I pray to God unlikely), that *every* vaguely
computer-oriented device on the planet-every mobile (cellular)
telephone, every PDA, every PC, every server, every games console,
every cable decoder, every Internet-enabled fridge, even the
computer built into your car-will rely on Microsoft software
within 10 years.
Please consider this when you finally agree the nature of the
solution.
MTC-00020624
From: Iain Farthing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an ex-employee of Microsoft, I'm still staggered at how you
have let the company off the hook.
The incredibly predatory and arrogant way that Microsoft goes
about trying to kill off any competition surely has to be stopped. I
was at the company when the "Kill Novell", "Kill
NetScape", "Kill Oracle", ad infinitum, emails
were flying around. No matter what your role was within the company,
you were tasked to focus on how you could hurt the competition. Not
a nice environment to be working within, especially as working in
The Channel, I had a number of close friends working for those
companies. Is it not to the benefit of the customer that there are
at least 2 companies/vendors/manufacturers working in any given
area? This breeds competition, and ensures that the product/s is/are
constantly reviewed and improved upon. It also gives the customer
choice. Is that not the fundamental basis of democracy?
It is sad to see, from this side of the pond, that you, the
government of the leading capitalist country in the world, cannot
take to task one of your own that has clearly operated in such an
illegal manner for 25 years. I look forward to some good finally
coming from these proceedings, that have frankly taken far too long
already.
Please do not publish my name attached to these comments. I
still have friends that work at Microsoft, and they would be
mortified if they knew what myself and fellow ex-employees really
thought of the company that they serve.
With kind regards
Iain Farthing
General Manager, Europe
NetTasking (Europe) Ltd
Suite 602
1 Exchange Tower
Harbour Exchange Square
London
E14 9GE
Mobile +44 (0)7764 608010
Office +44 (0)207 863 2300
Fax +44 (0)207 863 2301
Web www.nettasking.com
MTC-00020625
From: bart dirkson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:00am
[[Page 26916]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree!
MTC-00020626
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:58am
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,
Richard Radcliffe
2032 Middleton Dr
Wheaton, IL 60187
MTC-00020627
From: Shane Massey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:59am
Subject: Settlement Agreement
Microsoft's competitors couldn't keep up with Mr. Bill Gates in
terms of customer satisfaction so they decided they would try and
use the police force of government to achieve their goals. And
apparently they are making progress. The government has yet to prove
that Microsoft harmed any consumer. Microsoft does not force people
to purchase their products. People enter into a transaction
volitionally. That, my friends is called Capitalism. This entire
case has been a fraud.
Shane Massey
President
Lexicon Technologies, Inc.
www.lexicontech.com
Tel. (770) 602-1858
Fax. (770) 602-1833
MTC-00020628
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:00am
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,
DAVID KEATING
385 CHANCEY DRIVE
HIAWASSEE, GA 30546
MTC-00020629
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:01am
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,
Jason Pranger
5680 Irving Rd
Hastings, MI 49058
MTC-00020630
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:00am
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,
Jerry Sands
12224 Larch Circle NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55448
MTC-00020631
From: Blano (a) IO.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not support the Microsoft Settlement for the following
reasons:
*Punishment does not fit the carnage they wrought over the last
eight years
*Lack of a remedy for ongoing unsecure code development
*Continued effort to promote only closed systems without
integration across multiple platforms -
Blano
"What we do not understand, we do not possess.."
Goethe
MTC-00020632
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:58am
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,
Kenneth Hearld
1807 Everett St
Wichita, KS 67213-2805
MTC-00020633
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:59am
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
[[Page 26917]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
STEVE SCHIESS
10655 SILVER KNOLLS BLVD.
RENO, NV 89506
MTC-00020634
From: MARYGRELL@ OPTONLINE.NET@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:01am
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 GRELL
24 EAGLE LANE
FARMINGDALE, NY 11735-5908
MTC-00020635
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:01am
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,
Geraldine Duzenack
3307 179th Ave NE
Redmond, WA 98052-5813
MTC-00020636
From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is bad for the people.
MTC-00020637
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:03am
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,
Tom Wright
3759 Barrington Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
MTC-00020638
From: djohnston@anderson chemical.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02am
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,
David Johnston
1854 Maynards Mill Rd
Forsyth, GA 31029
MTC-00020639
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:01am
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,
Anne Ryan
143 South McGarigle Road
DeFuniak Springs, FL 32435
MTC-00020640
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:03am
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,
Jan Wilcox
605 S. Durand
Jackson, MI 49203
MTC-00020641
From: pfk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlememnt.
Stop the witch-hunt! Its time to get off Microsoft. This company
has done more good for the country through their own talent and
effort then most. If you want some real fish to fry, go after Enron
and the sleaze that got rich at the poor mans expense. PFKnopp
Greensburg, PA.
MTC-00020642
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26918]]
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,
Paul Damrau
9640 Summit st. rd.
43 Main St.
Leroy, NY 14482-8971
MTC-00020643
From: dcutler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:04am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am against the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. The
settlement does little to address and correct Microsoft's
anticompetitive monopolistic practices. The settlement should
require Microsoft to make redress for damages done and should
guarantee future software interoperability. Also, that product tying
(e.g., Internet Explorer and Windows) does not continue in the
future.
Dedra Cutler
602 Cottage St
Vienna, VA 22180
MTC-00020644
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02am
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,
Thomas Babich
39-46 Wenonah Drive
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410-5421
MTC-00020645
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02am
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,
Dan Skinner
847 Winter Court
Carmel , IN 46032
MTC-00020646
From: Ken Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I have been appalled at the way the government has handled the
Microsoft case for 4 years now. The case was trumped up against
Microsoft and played out with resources that I as a tax payer pay
for when those resources could have been used to stop 9/11 or many
other things.
I am a business person in the computer industry. I have ran a
small company for over 10 years and worked with companies such as
IBM, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft, and more. Who has the most underhanded
tactics that are hurting the competition? In my book, its Sun and
Oracle. I refuse to work with them because of the low down tactics
and business practices.
On another note, if it were not for Microsoft, we would be
paying many times more for operating systems and software today. In
fact, there would not be PCs in most peoples homes because they
could not afford the software. Don't take my word for it, just do
the research on software prices from the days before Microsoft
entered the field and became successful with Windows and Office.
It saddens me in this time and economy to see resources wasted
on this case. Especially when the people pushing it are doing it for
monetary gains for their companies (Oracle / Sun) or for political
gain for themselves (Sen Hatch).
Settle this case and lets get back to business before you
destroy the economy.
Ken.
32X Tech Corporation-Bringing Technology into Focus
visit us at http://www.32x.com
MTC-00020647
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:06am
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,
Don Burnette
505 North Buhl Farm Drive
Hermitage, PA 16148
MTC-00020648
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:05am
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,
LaVada Davis
6870 Deatrick Rd SE
Elizabeth, IN 47117-9150
MTC-00020649
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:04am
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
[[Page 26919]]
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,
Morrie Kleinbart
75 East End Avenue
Apt 2D
New York, NY 10028
MTC-00020650
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:04am
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,
Morrie Kleinbart
75 East End Avenue
Apt 2D
New York, NY 10028
MTC-00020651
From: David Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:08am
Subject: When is this is done
I think that Microsoft as a company is getting robbed by their
competors and the states that remain in this fake lawsuite should
pack it up and go home. The settlement is fair to me, a consumer and
I hope that the benefits that Microsoft provides me will not be
hindered in the future. David Beck
MTC-00020652
From: Preston, Anthony F (N-AS(038)T)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
It is my opinion that the DOJ settlement with Microsoft is a
politically motivated and will not prevent any of the problems
caused by Microsoft from happening again and again. It is having the
Fox watch the Hen house. Please reject the settlement as
insufficient punishment of Microsoft.
Thank you,
Anthony Preston
Tony Preston
SR. Principal Engineer/Scientist
Atlantic Sciences and Technology Corp.
Lockheed Martin NE&SS
Threat System, Modeling & Simulation Analysis
Building 13000 A205-L
phone: 856-638-7023
MTC-00020653
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:08am
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,
Allen Taylor
5448 West Mission
fresno, CA 93722
MTC-00020654
From: Pete Toscano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the Proposed Final
Judgment for the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that the PFJ does
little to encourage competition, in some parts, even further hurts
competition, lacks any true enforcement mechanisms, and does not in
any way punish Microsoft for its already established anti-
competitive practices. If true competition in the computer industry
is to ever return, a new punishment and enforcement plan must be
determined.
Sincerely,
Pete Toscano
Fairfax, VA
MTC-00020655
From: Tim Utschig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, my name is Tim Utschig. I am a student studying Computer
Information Systems from Campbell, California. I would like to
submit to you my comments on the revised proposed Final Judgment in
the antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation.
It is my opinion that section III.J can be used by Microsoft to
be exempt from III.D and III.E. Microsoft would claim security
concerns in any circumstance and avoid releasing documentation
necessary to develop an interoperable product. Also III.D and III.E
do not go far enough to open up documentation for Microsoft's secret
APIs and Protocols. Without documentation of all APIs and all
protocols, Microsoft's illegal monopoly will remain entrenched,
continue to gain power and eliminate all possible competition.
Without free, open, public standards for communication protocols
Microsoft will continue to put their secret protocols in place of
those that are public until there are only two choices; Use
Microsoft software, or cease to communicate.
Microsoft did exactly that with their MSN internet service, and
with 500,000 subscribers of the ISP Qwest last November. The Qwest
subscribers were given two options. Start using Microsoft Outlook
for E-Mail, or find a new ISP. This is due to the introduction
of Microsoft's secret "Secure Password Authentication"
into MSN's and Qwest's E-Mail servers. Use of which is
mandatory if you want to read your E-Mail. Only Microsoft
E-Mail clients know how to use this secret authentication
mechanism. The Final Judgment should be revised to ensure that this,
and any future such mechanism will have free, public documentation.
It should be made clear that security does not come from keeping
the algorithm a secret. Security comes from a secure design, and
making that design public does not compromise its security. Security
through obscurity is not security at all. Making the design free and
public encourages competition, and that is why Microsoft avoids it.
I hope, for the sake of the economy, that some good comes out of
this antitrust case. Many competing companies employ significantly
more people than a single company with a monopoly.
Sincerely,
Tim Utschig
MTC-00020656
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:07am
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.
[[Page 26920]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rod Rod
6409 Fantail Lane
Cicero, NY 13039
MTC-00020657
From: Teri Kincheloe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to tell you that I, as a taxpayer in good standing
in this wonderful country, am tired of the government and most
especially the supposedly Justice Department, going after Microsoft
and Bill Gates.
If it weren't for men like Mr. Gates, we wouldn't have the user
friendly format known as Windows and the amount of revenue he has
generated for this country. Yes, he made money for himself, but I
thought that was the American way. He also gives away more money
than just about anyone in this country also.
This entire lawsuit is about sour grapes and I wish you people
would find better things to do than chase after a legitimate
entrepreneur. If Mac can't make it against Microsoft, oh well!
That's the breaks of doing business.
Please find another horse to flog....this one is deader than the
proverbial doornail.
Sincerely,
Teresa Kincheloe
Teresa Kincheloe
12121 SE 44th St
Choctaw, Ok 73020
MTC-00020658
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:07am
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 Hodnett
3821 Watt Ave.
Waco, TX 76710-5348
MTC-00020659
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:07am
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,
Dennis Sherman
5335 Vista Glen
San Antonio, TX 78247-4601
MTC-00020660
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:09am
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,
Gregory Salamon
87 Sheraton Avenue
Somerset, MA 02725-1129
MTC-00020661
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:08am
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"or 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,
Teri McNeal
1619 E. Grauwyler Rd., #102
Irving, TX 75061
MTC-00020662
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:07am
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,
David Nading
118 Quail Run
Seguin, TX 78155-0836
MTC-00020663
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
MTC-00020663-0001
Ladies and Gentlemen of the US Department of Justice, This is a
long one, but please stick it out to the end. As an IT professional
I come into contact with both Microsoft and other vendors"
software every day.
I have both a Windows 2000 and a Red Hat Linux desktop computer
on my desk. I use third-party software for both.
In the past year, I have kept an eye out for security alerts for
both sets of software, and, obviously, spotted trends relating to
both. I have seen the various issues relating to the trial in the
news on a variety of sources, from cnn.com to slashdot.org,
encountered pretty much the entire spectrum of feelings about the
case, from pro-MS to alt.bin.billgates.die.die.die-there's a
lot of strong opinions out there.
[[Page 26921]]
In my job I have to liaise with several companies who produce
hardware and software. Some work with MS, some against them, most,
both with them and against them.
Never, in any dealings with any vendor, have I encountered one
so awkward, monomaniacal, unhelpful, unrepentent and secretive as
Microsoft. They produce, in my experienced, half-baked products,
rich in features stolen from other places, and generally tie their
software into their operating systems to create a mesh of lock-in.
They have leveraged their overwhelming desktop monopoly to subvert
web standards, forcing intermediate devices to conform lest their
owners receive a wealth of complaints about broken service. Let me
give you an example. Many users complained that, using our dial-in
service, a particular website was broken. This spread until a whole
range of websites seemed to be broken-if, and only if, a user
dialled in through our service. Some investigation turned up that
all of these websites ran new versions of IIS. A little
investigation, into only a small set of the users, revealled that
all of the users who answered were using IE 5, new at the time.
Our dial-in service uses proxy servers, and the ones quoted as
'working" didn't. So clearly it was our proxy
servers and we approached the proxy vendor about this. Investigation
by them yielded the following result. IIS served, in some
circumstances, broken (ie, against the HTTP standard) responses to
some requests that involved an object having been moved. IE5
expected this broken behaviour. The proxy server, in the middle,
noticed this broken behaviour and corrected it. IE5 then didn't
understand the answer. So users complained to us that *our* service
(standards compliant) was broken. The users don't know the
difference and, due to 00020663-0002 extensive marketing from
Microsoft, are disinclined to believe that IE is at fault, and
certainly would never believe that Microsoft conspired-or just
happened to-break IIS standards compliance and then stick with
that broken behaviour in IE.
The resolution was an ugly hack in the proxy-if IE was
talking to IIS, allow standards to be broken-which, while on
the surface seemingly harmless is perhaps a distinct case of the
"rot" setting in. Now, Netscape users going to these
sites would have, at the time, found the site broken. They would
complain to the site admin, or, more likely, their ISP. But using
our dialup service, they would find the site worked, because the
proxy gave Netscape behaviour it expected. But Microsoft could
simply point out that most normal sites worked in both browsers, and
some sites didn't work in Netscape, therefore use IE.
This is the sort of insidious tactic that is a constant in MS
products. Never before have we seen this sort of power, wielded in
this sort of way. Other companies have held monopolies for sure, and
held customers and governments to ransom. But the computer market is
a more dangerous battleground because such a great deal of normal
everyday functions are coming to depend on them. And while this
battle is painful enough for those opposing the giant now, in 5 or
10 years it will be *much, much* worse.
So those who have had demonstrated to them the duplicitious,
greedy and disagreeable nature of MS in the trials to date-I
note that the first finding of fact stated both a monopoly and the
use of the monopoly to exclude Netscape's product, and the fact that
MS were caught lying in court (their demonstrations were later shown
to be rigged, as I recall) - should now take what is probably the
last opportunity that will arise to prevent MS becoming even more
arrogant and even more domineering. While I would not begrudge a
company the right to either success or to protect its interests,
when you are dealing with the new mode of communication for people
around the world, this is not territory to divvy up. When there's
other ways, when there's alternatives, *that's* something worth
fighting over. But when the position has been reached that most
users are unable to avoid Microsoft, that they have entangled
themselves in the industry to such a degree that, like an alien
parasite they cannot be removed with killing the patient, a company
like that must start to demonstrate a sense of responsibility.
It is as though MS had almost made themselves 'the
government of the desktop computer'. They can control what you
can put on it, unless you "emigrate"-hard work and
likely to cut you off from your friends, with whom you can no longer
share documents. With the upcoming Windows XP they can coerce you to
their will through their updates system-simply by
00020663-0003 bundling a necessary security update with some
other change *they* wish to make and you don't.
Yet they do not accept this responsibility. Imagine if the US
military gave up its responsibilities and started acting like
Microsoft. They would go round to people's homes, wave guns and
them, and suggest that the people might want to make a
'contribution" in order for them to take risks to guard
that citizen's home. Else a stray round might go that way,
know what I mean, guv'nor? They would decide it wasn't profitable to
protect Florida, all that way, stuck out on a limb, needs lots of
men to guard basically beaches and swamps.., barely worth it. And
the people of Florida? Small minority, not worth the business.
It has been said that politics is about pettiness but leadership
is about greatness. Sadly, you must not only endure but *win* the
pettiness in order to gain leadership-where you somehow have
to put aside years of pettiness and wheel out the greatness you have
been storing up. But likewise, capitalism encourages bitter fighting
amongst companies, lowering prices, bundled packages, promises of
security and interoperability in the case of computers. However, it
runs on the premise that there will not be one monopoly and a bunch
of little players, springing up only to be roundly killed off by the
giant. There is no significant competition-therefore no market
forces.
So, Microsoft has exited the period of pettiness and competition
and now entered the realm of leadership, but not shown any signs of
having thrown away that pettiness in favour of greatness.
That is why the DoJ has to step in. If they will not act like
leaders, then the only power that stands above them must *make* them
behave responsibly. And if that is not permitted, then only one
option remains. The monster exists, and exerts its influence. By
lobbying, contributing, all the things that help make politicians
decide they aren't an issue, MS sees to it that it cannot be killed.
So it must be tamed, and other companies must be given the chance to
re-introduce the market forces that keep everything in balance.
MS does not have the great products they claim. Their products
are at best mediocre. The number of security alerts alone denies
greatness. But they did have smart marketing, and introduced lock-in
early on, and did subvert standards to their own ways, and did hide
the open interoperability information from other companies, and did
specifically block out competitors" products. Ask IBM about
that. So, break them up. Their OS division, without the ability to
interoperate so secretly with their software division, would find it
more profitable to open up their API's so that other third-party
software worked better. 00020663.0004
Many people buy an OS because it runs a particular
application-it now benefits MS-OS to work with all
applications. Similarly MS-SW, it's profits are maximised by
working better with all operating systems, not just Windows.
Break the giant-into pieces which each have competitors
which can influence them. Break them into a number of pieces,
perhaps OS, browser, Office, Hardware, Other.
Don't accept this ridiculous solution they offer-let's
see, in penance for monopolistic behaviour we're going to give
Windows to one of the few segments of society that cannot afford
(yet) to buy it-poor kids. How stupid do they think we, and
you, are? Fining them is no good-fining companies is rarely
any good. No-one has the guts to levvy a 10 or 20 billion dollar
fine, enough to force a break-up and major changes. While this case
is nominally about browsers, what exists is the one chance the
government will get to stop what has happened. History will look
back at this and wonder how it came to pass that most people were
held in sway by one company, forced to accept the sub-standard
products that result from the company still frantically working to
deadlines, putting nice, GUI widgets before basic operation, making
sure they shut out every possible competitor.
Microsoft has said that it takes security most seriously now.
And of course, this isn't just another marketing ploy. Honest. No
really. So, naturally they will put their core code up for peer
review, as pretty much everyone who is serious about security
does... I don't think it's worth us holding our breath until that
moment. Well, let them fix the problems with their products. After
all-that means better products. But if they are broken up,
their products will have to compete on a level playing field (for
the first time for many of their products) and then we'll see how
much work they have to put in on security, stability, etc.
You know what you have to do. All that remains is for you to
summon up the courage to do it, in the face of what will be bitter
and underhanded resistance from Microsoft. This isn't about the law.
The law is just the means.
[[Page 26922]]
This is about creating a suitable environment for the computing
industry to advance. Everyone, including Microsoft in whatever
form(s) they take, will benefit from that. 00020663-0005
No-one benefits from the continued existence of a monopoly whose
self-preservation is best served by lock-in, secrecy about problems,
and success marketing. The DoD runs military operations on
computers. The Treasury calculates the budget on computers. The
State Department maintains records on Americans on
computers-social security, etc. The DoJ maintains criminal
records on computers.
How will it be in 10 years time, when MS is more or less free to
do anything, and still does not have the greatness to do the hard
work to make good, value-for-money products that are secure. How
will it be when serious compromises of every government department
are weekly news- because no secure OS's are easily
interoperable. Will we use firewalls? How about Cisco firewalls,
which are secure 'because only 12 people have seen the source
code'. Cisco is another large company, with growing market
share, but that's not the problem today. Their day will come, in
both senses.
No, this case provides opportunity to do what would otherwise be
impossible-MS would make enough legal noise that no-one could
break them up without having caught them at something major, and I
doubt they'll be stupid enough to get caught like this again.
They've learned-learned to hide things better.
Now is the time. You know what to do. John
John Denholm Cachemaster
Team Leader, Content Distribution and Storage,
Core Systems, Energis Squared Tel: +44 113 207 6357
00020663-0006
MTC-00020664
From: Kewchick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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.
Robert and Renee Joyce 522 S Cortez Rd Apache Jct AZ 85219
MTC-00020665
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:08am
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,
Dan Skinner
847 Winter Court
Carmel , IN 46032
MTC-00020666
From: David S. Isenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I object to the Microsoft Settlement.
I want to see a settlement with teeth, not one that is part of
the Microsoft-standard business plan.
David S. Isenberg, Ph.D.
David S. Isenberg [email protected]
isen.com, inc. 888-isen-com (inside US)
http://isen.com/ 908-654-0772 (from abroad)
-The brains behind The Stupid Network-
MTC-00020667
From: Bobby Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed Microsoft
settlement. There are so many things wrong with it that I won't be
able to list them all here. The worst part is that it does
absolutely nothing to stem the growing abusive monopoly that is
Microsoft. Computing has become one of the most important aspects of
our Nation. It affects everything we see and do. Lack of
competition, and having a single product forced down our throats,
flies in the face of what America stands for. Was not America
founded so that people can live their life free from the
monopolistic powers of the church and monarchy? Where will we turn
when we are all forced to worship at Microsoft's feet. And will our
government be nothing more than Bill Gates" lackeys? Please
hear our voice and make Microsoft responsible for their power.
Thank you,
Bobby Hays
Covington, GA
MTC-00020668
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10am
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,
Tom Dudley
25560 Bryden Rd
Beachwood, OH 44122-4165
MTC-00020669
From: Norman Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets please leave Microsoft alone. They have paid dearly (as
have us in the economy) for the highly selfish, greediness of a few
politicians and lawyers.
Norman Smith
3601 Woodlark Drive
Roswell, GA 30075
770-998-1054
MTC-00020670
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11am
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,
Connie Orr
756 Samantha Dr.
Palm Harbor, FL 34683-6200
MTC-00020671
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11am
[[Page 26923]]
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,
Barbara Burgdorff
5107 Rivertree Lane
Spring, TX 77379-6029
MTC-00020672
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10am
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,
Pete Weaver
301 East Penn Street
Bedford, PA 15522
MTC-00020673
From: Willem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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,
Willem Dykstra
MTC-00020674
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10am
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,
tony gatti
14904 landmark
louisville, KY 40245-6525
MTC-00020675
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11am
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,
shelley owens
14904 landmark
louisville, KY 40245-6525
MTC-00020676
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:13am
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,
Don Trammell
2186 Horseleg Cr. Rd., SW
Rome, GA 30165-8524
MTC-00020677
From: John Slater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a Joke.
John Slater
MTC-00020678
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:13am
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,
RICHARD HOWELL
PO BOX 232
DALLAS CITY, IL 62330
MTC-00020679
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26924]]
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,
Orbin Sexson
105 Patterson Dr.
Auburndale, FL 33823-2323
MTC-00020680
From: Tim Scoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good morning,
My feeling about any settlement or judgement against Microsoft
in the anti-trust case is a simple one. They have been found guilty
of abusing their monopoly to drive other companies out of business.
They have appealed and the appeals court found that they were indeed
guilty of abusing their monopoly to drive companies out of business.
Microsoft needs to face a penalty which will put a stop to this
behavior. It would be nice if somehow all of the small businesses
which have been driven out of business as a result of their tactics
could be brought back and their employees and owners compensated.
However that is probably impossible. Instead Microsoft needs to face
a penalty which will keep them from doing this in the future.
Anything which doesn't result in them behaving in an ethical manner
is a waste of every penny spent prosecuting them over the last few
years.
I don't have any suggestions as to what an appropriate penalty
should be. However if talking about the penalty does not result in
Microsoft turning on it's propaganda machine, sending large
quantities of fake "grass-roots" letters such as this
one, buying advertising, etc.... in opposition against the penalty
then it isn't harsh enough.
Tim Scoff
[email protected]
(724) 342-3173
Cell-(724) 866-7862
556 Tamplin Street
Sharon, Pa. 16146
MTC-00020681
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:12am
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,
Richard Myers
821 Fairlane Dr.
Chillicothe, MO 64601
MTC-00020682
From: David Withington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear D.O.J.:
Concerning the Microsoft Settlement I firmly believe Microsoft
should be lauded with praise for a company that has brought vast
innovation to the marketplace and consumers. Through Microsoft's
efforts we now have more affordable options in computing that we did
not have before Microsoft. These efforts have made the consumer and
businesses more productive and increased our standard of living.
Microsoft has excelled at what they do and should not be
punished for it by government antitrust laws. The good should not be
punished for being good. Microsoft plays tough and that is that and
there is nothing inherently wrong with that fact regardless of what
envious competitors want.
Sincerely,
David Withington
69 Grand Avenue
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
MTC-00020683
From: James Bouklas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to say that I am against a Microsoft Settlement.
MTC-00020684
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
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,
TAMI LEWIS
P.O.BOX 714
ESTERO, FL 33928
MTC-00020685
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
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,
Daniel North
809 Quince Rd.
Harlan, IA 51537
MTC-00020686
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
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,
Andy Otte
[[Page 26925]]
7031 S. 38th #86
Lincoln, NE 68516
MTC-00020687
From: Bob Tancredi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice United States of America
Hello,
Please stop your actions against Microsoft. Today in America,
even the dead can sue. The fact that AOL can sue Microsoft on behalf
of Netscape long after AOL bought Netscape, promotes open season
suing in the courts by anybody, against anybody for any reason.
A prudent court, and governing body, should end this legal
licentiousness instead of promoting it. As for some moral stand
presumed necessary against Microsoft's dominance of operating
systems, the concept of "restoring competition in the
marketplace," is dead wrong in principle, and an excuse for
also rans to avenge themselves against winners.
A prudent court should not promote the use of government force,
fines, threats of imprisonment, or enforced dismemberment of
companies based on an arguable and contradictory set of rules. This
is America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
To pursue a remedy against Microsoft promotes the ascension of
naked, brute power over argument, force over reason, barbarity over
rule of law. Unclear, arguable law is by nature an oxymoron. Law is
principle. Principles are simply stated and immediately grasped by
reasonable men. Sherman Antitrust does not qualify.
Microsoft, headed by Bill Gates, helped to spark the boom of the
last quarter century in this country. What thanks we give to his
achievements by destroying the very tool that created wealth for our
and future generations.
Put a stop to this US sanctioned encouragement of legalized
destruction, please.
Sincerely,
Bob Tancredi
Portland, Maine
MTC-00020688
From: David Vincent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I'm from Switzerland, but you my be interested in our
comments...
- 1st, we do not like Micro$oft and their policy, those gays
have NEVER invented anything, they just rub other company and pay in
the court, but still make 90% of profit.
- 2nd, when they say that they invented something, it's because
they bot the company who invented, if I have money, I can do the
same
- 3rd, we think here in Europe, if MS get a monopole, which they
have, this will be a very bad thing for any computer business, and
in the futur for any business
- 4st, we don't know any MS products without bugs, security,
etc... So if MS still keep those monopole, nothing in the computer
world can be protected against Hacker
- 5th, MS have never done anything for the Internet, just made
it very difficult for the developer around the world, they want to
impose the way to do, you can see many complain about this
- 6th, we think that all this is only a question of money,
almost of the US Government is corrupt, if MS is here to day it's
because they pay for it, only this, so if you want to give to anyone
the same chance, STOP MicroSoft and their monopole, then we can
think that the write Justice have been made
- 7th, you can see the last month that MS laugh about you and
the justice, they made a new Game Machine (XBox), bot more that 10
company, try to get larger monopole by buying SGI licence (Microsoft
Trying to Kill OpenGL, Microsoft has aquired key 3D patents from
SGI), etc... etc...
- 8th, there is not one day without you can read that MS is
going to court for seeking damages... "an attempt to get
justice." from those company, you should think about this...
(only bad people go's to court every day), so what you waiting for
???
- 9th, if you do not stop MS today, the future of the world will
be very bad, MS will have more power as any government in this world
- 10th, etc... etc... we can talk about this day's
- 11th, please fix Micro$oft
Best regards
David
PS: sorry for my bad English
-
Just do it different
http://www.dvdesign.com/
MTC-00020689
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14am
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,
Barbara Matz
24 Cherry Tree Ln.
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
MTC-00020690
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15am
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,
Harold Culp
1665 Maple Ridge Drive
Loganville, GA 30052-3802
MTC-00020691
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
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 Robertson
5415 Britwell Ct
Tampa, FL 33624-4176
MTC-00020692
From: Cowlishaw, James
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir / Madam,
It is important to the health of the software industry in
general and competition in particular that you require and enforce
the cessation of boot loader / licensing issues which are currently
imposed (threatened or otherwise) by Microsoft.
Diversity is the best way to foster improvement and innovation.
Please take
[[Page 26926]]
necessary steps to return diversity to the desktop operating system
market.
Thank you,
James Cowlishaw
170 Walkley Lane
Sheffield S6 2PA
South Yorkshire
UK
MTC-00020693
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
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,
Jennifer Denton
217 North Congress St
Mendenhall, , MS 39114
MTC-00020694
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15am
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 Walenga
704 Valley Brook
Mt Juliet, TN 37122
MTC-00020695
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:17am
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,
Patricia Sharpe
7615 Hovering Mist Way
Jacksonville, FL 32277
MTC-00020696
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
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,
Lynn Demsky
1976 Catlin Drive
Rochester, MI 48306-4596
MTC-00020697
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
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,
Margie Miles
9993 Hwy 165
Pollock, LA 71467
MTC-00020698
From: Carlos S. Del Castillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I am writing to you to express my total disapproval at the way
that this case is being handled by your department.
I am a Manager of Information Technology, for a small firm and
was wrongfully believing that now that my government has stepped
into this fray, my rights as a consumer and an American would be
protected. Apparently we must change our name to United States of
Microsoft. I cannot understand how your organization can go from
insisting that the Microsoft organization is broken up to a
settlement that reminds me of swiss cheese.
Everything I have read so far, shows me how this administration
has basically told your department to go easy on Microsoft. How can
I come to this conclusion? Pretty simple, prior to our new President
taking office, your office was seeking the breakup of the company
and would not settle for anything so "slap on the wrist"
as what your seeking now. Making Microsoft a legal monopoly would
only enhance their ability to squash competition. Have you forgotten
that they have been reprimanded before and like a small child they
returned to their previous practices within months. Your job is to
protect us, the American citizen. I understand that you also must
consider the right of the corporation, but this should never be at
the expense of the consumer.
If your looking for examples of how Microsoft believes the
technology world should function, just look at their recent
activities with regards to Linux. First they begin by releasing to
the public outright lies and scaring programmers into believing that
using Linux or free software will allow everyone to use their
software free of charge. When that didn't give them the results they
were looking for, they then made it illegal for a programmer to use
any Microsoft product to create free software. Now they are
attempting in making it illegal for a programmer to release software
free of charge (see the recent changes to UCITA). Microsoft has not
been known to advance technology but actually to hold technology
back. If their is a product that is better than what they currently
offer, their general response is either to purchase the company or
give away their version until the competitor goes belly up.
I do not feel that the remedies proposed in your settlement go
far enough to protect the
[[Page 26927]]
American consumer. You should return to the pre-Bush proposals,
break the company up into different entities so that the people of
America are given the choice to decide whether they want Microsoft
or not. I fear that if we continue in this direction, we will end up
not only isolated from the rest of the World, but a country that
technologically speaking belongs to a corporation.
Sincerely
Carlos S. Del Castillo
MTC-00020700
From: Arona Ann Pearlstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello.
My name is Arona Ann Pearlstein and I am a computer programmer.
This e-mail regards the Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft
Anti-Trust lawsuit. As per the Tunney Act comment process, I am
providing comments about this settlement.
The proposed settlement is, simply put, a bad idea. In reviewing
the propoed settlement, two issues stand out the most:
1) According to the settlement, Microsoft cannot retaliate
against vendors (OEMs, ISVs and IHVs) who support or develop
alternatives to Windows. But, the settlement does not provide any
assistance to these vendors. Providing assistance to these vendors
would encourage healthy competition in the Intel-compatible
operating system market.
Even worse, the vendors are restricted to writing software whose
sole purpose is to interoperate with the Windows operating system.
They are thus effectively prevented from writing operating systems
that can interoperate with Windows programs.
2) The proposed final judgment does not provide any means for
enforcement. While there are suggestions for a technical committee
and such, no enforcement plan of action has been developed.
The proposed final judgment must have some legitmate plan for
enforcement; it is not enough to leave the job up the legal system.
If no enforcement plan is provided, the judgment's affect upon
Microsoft will be negligible at best, a proverbial slap on the
wrist.
Although I currently live overseas in Geneva, Switzerland, this
issue is extremely important to all American citizens, as well as to
anybody (regardless of his or her nationality) involved in the
computer industry. Switzerland's neighbors in the European Economic
Union (EEU) are currently discussing similar legal action against
Microsoft. They are no doubt examining the proposed final judgment
carefully.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Arona Ann Pearlstein
MTC-00020701
From: Ryan Layton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The proposed Microsoft settlement is much way too lenient for a
case of this magnitude. Microsoft was found guilty and the
punishment must fit the crime. You need to go ahead with the
original proposal to break Microsoft up so that it will no longer be
able to leverage its monopoly for pure greed and profit.
Microsoft is still brazenly indulging in these anticompetitive
practices even though it has been embarassed and
exposed-capitalism can only go so far. Make the computer field
a more level playing field for others in the market. Windows isn't
the best operating system out there, yet it is the most popular.
Microsoft reached this market dominance through unethical and unfair
business practices. This must stop.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I request you to
do all you can to ensure Microsoft is punished in a manner that will
make them think twice about indulging in monopolistic and greed-
motivated practices in the future. Force them to sell a version of
Windows without a web browser, split up the company, and so forth.
Don't let them walk away from this, or they will just get WORSE.
Thank you,
Ryan Layton
5430 Truckee Court
Las Vegas, NV 89122
MTC-00020702
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:21am
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,
Thomas Hutson
48 Waldorf Pl.
Brasstown, NC 28902
MTC-00020703
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:21am
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,
Fred Cathey
5024 Mt. Carmel Rd
Hampstead, MD 21074-2926
MTC-00020704
From: Wilson Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree! They're the worst predator since T-Rex!
MTC-00020705
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:17am
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,
Patrick Bruss
19364 Woodcrest
Harper Woods, MI 48225-2059
MTC-00020706
From: Dave Solon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:20am
Subject: Public Comment on MS Settlement
Let my comments state that I think the current settlement in the
Microsoft case is an absolute farce. The current settlement simply
helps Microsoft get more of a footing into another market that they
want to "rule" : education. Proposing that MS give
equipment and software to schools is like rolling out a red carpet
and letting them walk right in with absolutely no competition. This
settlement only perpetuates their abhorrent behavior of squashing
the "little guy" with unlawful business practices. If
this settlement goes
[[Page 26928]]
through, it only shows that our government is more concerned with
the welfare of big business and that they don't really care about
the consumer.
If MS really wants to help education, let MS give them the cash
and let educators decide what type of computer and operating system
they want to purchase to help their schools and students. Don't
limit their creativity by imposing even more MS products on them.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
David Solon-Consumer, Educator, American.
465 Mallard Drive
Manheim, PA 17545
MTC-00020707
From: Andrew McNair
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is a good idea.
Andrew McNair
TechServices
Web Development Group
(260)490-8324
http://www.techservices.net
Recently completed...
http://www.recognizeit.com
MTC-00020708
From: Jeff (038) Sharon Wikstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is high time to stop the wheels of the Microsoft Settlement.
Let free enterprise take place. These guys were just Hippies in the
70's, computer nerds who became successful. Let it be. Leave them
alone.
Jeff Wikstrom
MTC-00020709
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:22am
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,
Judy Patterson
681 Oakcrest Dr.
Wadsworth, OH 44281-8605
MTC-00020710
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:26am
Subject: Stop it!
Isn't enough enough with Microsoft! Why, when someone has an
idea and perpetuates it to success, can the losers of this world get
away with fighting to undo it!
MTC-00020711
From: Bingham, Bruce
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement does nothing to curb the abusive power that
microsoft holds over the marketplace.
Bruce Bingham
MTC-00020712
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:21am
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,
David Hromas
5210 Aylesworth Ave
Lincoln, NE 68504-3164
MTC-00020713
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23am
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,
Maurice Knudsen
4428 Main Street
Elk Horn, IA 51531-2000
MTC-00020714
From: Rick Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing you to encourage that you re-evaluate the proposed
Microsoft settlement terms.
I am not really anti-Microsoft. I work with their products every
day and feel that many of their products offer a good value, are
smartly designed, and frequently do more than I ask of them. It
would be easy for me to say that if it weren't for Microsoft, my job
would be much harder.
An operating system to a computer is like paper is to a book.
Without paper, it would be difficult to publish a book. The paper
really has little to do with the content of the book or, what the
book is used for but it is a necessary and integeral part of the
book. Paper manufacturers are free to make paper however they wish.
Some use cotton, others use rags, most use wood. But they all need
to make the paper so that it can be handled by the machines that
make the book and they need to concern themselves with how the paper
works with the ink, the presses, and the shears that cut the paper.
Their recipe for how they make the paper may be a secret but,
they meet the specifications demanded by the industry that uses
their product and they publish the specifications of their paper.
This is where my analogy fails and where Microsoft has failed the
industry. Their failure has stifeled creativity and given them
unfair advantages over other companies. They have played the game
but held the choicest cards back for themselves. This has helped
them gain market share against competitive products (Like Netscape
Navigator, Lotus SmartSuite and countless others). Their dominance
in the market has allowed them to bully not only their competitors
but their business partners as well. A computer manufacturer would
have a hard time selling a computer without being able to offer
Microsoft Windows and everyone knows it. Microsoft's reach is long,
they supply the tools to developers and administrators as well.
Recently, Microsoft filed suit against a small start up company
that is using the name "Lindows." For some reason,
Microsoft feels that name is too close to their trademark
"Windows." Their claim is that the term is confusingly
similar. I am not a lawyer, I may be wrong, but I see a clear
difference and can not see how someone would confuse the two names.
What I see is a company that has clearly not learned it's lesson.
They are still playing the bully and will use their considerable
clout and fortune to hurt a company that they see as a threat in a
manner that I find morally and ethically repugnant. How can we not
expect them to interpet the settlement in a similar fashion? I
already
[[Page 26929]]
expect that they will find loophole after loophole and will exploit
each and every one of them. I do not expect that they will fully
publish every hook that their other applications use to the
operating system nor do I expect that they will provide the
necessary support documentation available that would make this
information beneficial to developers (and in some cases, the
public). They will continue to build their monopoly and abuse the
public's trust.
Microsoft has all but destroyed one of the most innovative
companys to come along in a long time. They did this by giving away
their browser which was the product Netscape made popular. This
shows the depth that they will sink to to destroy anyone who tries
to garner a piece of their market. Any settlement that the DOJ
reaches with Microsoft must without a doubt require proof from
Microsoft that they are in total compliance with the agreement and
that they will permit external auditors to verify this. Any
agreement with Microsoft must contain provisions that will severly
restrict their business practices should they be found in non-
compliance. Any agreememnt with Microsft should require Microsft to
internally seperate it's operating systems development from other
development teams. This is the only way that Microsoft can truly
prove that they will comply with the agreement.
MTC-00020715
From: Roland Steorts
To: "[email protected]"
Date: 1/24/02 8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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,
Roland S Steorts
216 Hampton Way
Penfield, NY 14526
(585)586-0138
MTC-00020716
From: Jim Skinner
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. . . .
please do the right thing.
Jim Skinner
Port Charlotte, FL
MTC-00020717
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:26am
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,
Brian Witwicki
3179 Teal Bay Court
Aurora, IL 60504
MTC-00020718
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23am
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,
Bob Patterson
681 Oakcrest Dr.
Wadsworth, OH 44281-8605
MTC-00020719
From: Erika Chang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: the settlement between the US Department of Justice and
Microsoft
I believe the settlement is woefully inadequate and will
continue to allow Microsoft to penalize consumers like me who are
dissatisfied with Microsoft products, but are forced by the
Microsoft monopoly to use them nonetheless.
The Microsoft monopoly also encourages most businesses to
discriminate against me if I choose not to use Microsoft products.
For example, many web sites will not be accessible if I am not using
Microsoft Windows operating system and Microsoft Internet Explorer
web browser.
Additionally, I'm forced to purchase Microsoft products against
my will, as in when I purchase a new computer I am not allowed to
purchase one that comes with alternative operating systems or even
without any operating system at all (so I can install my own choice
of operating system).
While Microsoft may argue that the close integration of its
various technologies and its insistence on being pre-installed on
new computers benefits the consumers in "ease of use",
fact is I have no say in what is considered easy to use and I lose
control of my computer to Microsoft.
I cannot easily chose a competitive products that suit me better
to use instead of Microsoft's products, because Microsoft's tight
integration of its products prevents me from removing some of
Microsoft's products without damaging the Microsoft operating
system. I also have to pay for product that I don't want to use and
I am not free to choose competitive products.
I believe Microsoft is extremely anti-competitive and deserving
of severe restriction on its operations. It should not be allow to
continue with tight integration of its products without opening the
source up to competitors so that they too could implement better
integration with the dominant Microsoft operating system. No
Microsoft products should be allowed unfair advantages over their
competitors by virtue of being part of the company that owns the
dominant operating system.
If the Department of Justice fails to curtail Microsoft's anti-
competitive, anti-consumer practice, then it has failed the
capitalist system and our democracy. Please do not let Microsoft get
away with its anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Erika W.L. Chang
New York & London
MTC-00020720
From: Jeremy Lunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not sure if the Tunney Act applies to non-US citizens so if
it does I apologise for wasting your time. This issue concerns me
because Microsoft holds a global monopolly which is just as bad here
in Australia as other parts of world. No monopolly could be worse
than Microsoft.
Using APIs, File Formats and Networking Protocols Microsoft is
effectively locking any potential competitors out of the Market. The
only real solution that I can see to stop this is to break the
company up into different parts. If I had my way then they would be
broken up into three parts. Operating Systems, Applications and
Internet Services (MSN, Hotmail etc).
Consumers need a choice in which operating system and
applications they can
[[Page 26930]]
use. They shouldn't be locked into using particular software because
it's the only way they can communicate with others. My main concern
with the proposed Settlement is that it explicitly denies access to
individuals, not-for-profit organisations and government
organisations for API, Documentation and Communications Protocols.
This information should be available to the public at no charge.
Preferably on the web.
The following examples have been quoted from: 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,
. . ."_''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.'
This conditions mentioned would limit the ability of open source
projects such as WINE and Samba to take off. Open source is the best
way to give users choice.
Thank you for your time,
Jeremy Lunn
447 Station St
Box Hill VIC 3128
Australia
Jeremy Lunn
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.jabber.org/-the next generation of Instant
Messaging.
MTC-00020721
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23am
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,
Michelle Parker
1447 Old Pecos Trail
Santa Fe, NM 87505
MTC-00020723
From: Glen Bicking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to express my opinion regarding the antitrust suit
against Microsoft Corp. I fully support Microsoft. There plenty of
option for consumers to choose from and the choice they usually make
is Microsoft. They do this because Microsoft makes the best
products. They have created countless jobs and opportunity for
millions of people and I shudder to think what might have been if
the government had clipped the wings of Microsoft in it's early
stages. Please leave Microsoft alone and let them continue to be a
leader in their industry.
Thank you.
Glen Bicking
Network Administrator
Green Bay Packaging Inc.
[email protected]
Voice: 920.433.5329
Fax: 920.438.5329
MTC-00020725
From: lorna_atwood@ standardandpoors.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:25am
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,
Lorna Atwood
8207 So. High Court
Littleton, CO 80122-3222
MTC-00020726
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:33am
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,
Susan Burgardt
878 Scenic Court
Shoreview, MN 55126-9120
MTC-00020727
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31am
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,
Katherine Donlon
2382 SE Bounty Ave
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-6508
MTC-00020728
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:26am
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.
[[Page 26931]]
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,
Jeff Cox
6 Oakmont Lane
Littleton, CO 80127-3527
MTC-00020729
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31am
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 Hill
722C Jamestown Dr
Winter Park, FL 32792
MTC-00020730
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23am
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 Paul
2073 S. Perry Park Rd.
Sedalia, CO 80135-8545
MTC-00020731
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23am
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,
SHERWOOD GREGORY
5507 ASPEN
HOUSTON, TX 77081-6603
MTC-00020732
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:26am
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,
Eve Kantner
12209 Freemont Lane
Raleigh, NC 27613
MTC-00020733
From: R. Michael Litchfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:32am
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.
MTC-00020734
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
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,
Peter Lange
59 Chase Road
Thompson, CT 06277
MTC-00020735
From: Pete
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir
The proposed settlement with Microsoft will perpetuate a vicious
monopoly that has already cost IT consumers billions of dollars in
lost productivity from poorly coded software and severely restricted
their choices of tools in the workplace.
Microsoft's behavior in court, its willingness to evade,
deceive, bully and cajole is identical to its behavior in the
marketplace. The settlement currently proposed by the Department of
Justice will send a message to Microsoft and its peers that this
kind of behavior is not only acceptable, but profitable. If this
settlement goes through, the damage done will be incalculable. I
strongly urge you to send a vibrant message to the entire computer
industry by holding Microsoft strictly accountable for its illegal,
anticompetitive actions: scrap this settlement and pursue the course
that the dissenting states have adopted. Anything less is woefully
inadequate.
respectfully,
[[Page 26932]]
Pete Grubbs
Senior Editor
OS/2 e-Zine!
www.os2ezine.com
[email protected]
MTC-00020736
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31am
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,
Kay Ridley
P.O. Box 268
Macks Inn, ID 83433-0268
MTC-00020737
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31am
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,
Jennifer Carter
1518 S. 43rd St.
Temple, TX 76054
MTC-00020738
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
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,
Frank J Torchia
Oakmount Dr
Las Vegas, NV 89109
MTC-00020739
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
I couldn't agree with you more about the Microsoft situation.
This outfit, with slick Willy Gates at the head, has done more to
stifle competition and try to take over the world of PC software.
They have bribed and threatened computer manufacturers with varying
degrees of non-support should someone want to purchase a system
without the Microsoft OS. All you need to do is go to a computer
store or a manufacturer and try to buy a home system with OS/2 or
Linux or Unix or whatever operating system you want. You just can't
get it and it isn't because Microsoft has the best OS. It's because
all the manufacturers and resellers have a deal with Microsoft.
. . . .. not because they want to but because they have to
or they won't get the MS OS at the same cost as the other dealers.
Keep up the good work
Sincerely,
William Gube
5447 Grove Manor
Lady Lake, FL 32159
MTC-00020740
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:32am
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,
Martha Chumney
78650 42nd Ave 1701
Indio, CA 92201
MTC-00020741
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:36am
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,
Robert Lokar
3300 Oaknoll Road
Gibsonia, PA 15044-8483
MTC-00020742
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:37am
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
[[Page 26933]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Al Carneck
7213 Princess Anne Court
Warrenton, VA 20187
MTC-00020743
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:35am
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,
MaryAnn Thompson
205 Seneca Ct
Franklin, TN 37067
MTC-00020745
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:32am
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,
Eileen Novosel
1703 Lansdale Avenue
Bethlehem, PA 18017
MTC-00020746
From: Stan Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I must express my doubts about the proposed settlement between
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. Microsoft has for years
used a policy of copy and destroy, taking other companies ideas and
then propagating their own inferior knockoff through the use of the
wide deployment of their operating system. Initially, they are
compliant with existing standards, but eventually (and always) come
out with their own proprietary "improvement" which then
kills competition. In the settlement, they are allowed to decide who
they share such proprietary "improvements" with and this
is insatisfactory.
The settlement leaves too much power in the hands of Microsoft,
and they have shown themselves to be merciless in the welding of
such power. To allow an unapologetic monopoly to continue in its
actions, largely unchecked, is harmful to the consumers. Because
Microsoft does not truly have to compete, they are relaxed in things
which should be a priority, the strongest example of which is
security. Microsofts security attitude has resulted in billions of
dollars of damages because of exploitable holes in products such as
internet explorer and outlook express. In part it is the homogeny of
the system which makes such holes especially dangerous. And it is
their power as a monopoly which prevents the diversification
necessary for growth. They are the potato crop of Ireland and we are
now headed for the plague. How many will starve? Only measures
allowing true competition and therefore diversification can allow
prosperity. It is the government's job to serve the people, and
allowing microsoft to continue unchecked, or barely checked as this
settlement would do, is an inadequate service.
Thank you for your time
stan barnes
[email protected]
MTC-00020747
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:32am
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,
gary hays
6542 w tonopah drive
glendale, AZ 85308
MTC-00020748
From: Jeff Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just want to buy an operating system. According to http://
whatis.techtarget.com/definition/
0,289893,sid9-gci212714,00.html, "An operating system
(sometimes abbreviated as "OS") is the program that,
after being initially loaded into the computer by a boot program,
manages all the other programs in a computer. The other programs are
called applications or application programs. The application
programs make use of the operating system by making requests for
services through a defined application program interface (API). In
addition, users can interact directly with the operating system
through a user interface such as a command language or a graphical
user interface (GUI).
An operating system performs these services for applications:
a.. In a multitasking operating system where multiple programs
can be running at the same time, the operating system determines
which applications should run in what order and how much time should
be allowed for each application before giving another application a
turn.
b.. It manages the sharing of internal memory among multiple
applications.
c.. It handles input and output to and from attached hardware
devices, such as hard disks, printers, and dial-up ports.
d.. It sends messages to each application or interactive user
(or to a system operator) about the status of operation and any
errors that may have occurred.
e.. It can offload the management of what are called batch jobs
(for example, printing) so that the initiating application is freed
from this work.
f.. On computers that can provide parallel processing, an
operating system can manage how to divide the program so that it
runs on more than one processor at a time. "
I don't want any programs on the operating system. This includes
Web Browser, Media Players, Mail Readers, Newsreaders, Picture
Viewers, Firewalls, Games, etc.. Paint, Notepad, Wordpad and
Calculator I can live with as long as they can be uninstalled.
Microsoft's Problem is they also put applications on the Operating
System and don't let you uninstall them. I don't mind that they are
producing these applications but the fact that they are including
them for free ALONG WITH the Operating System gives them an unfair
advantage with respect to their competitors who also make programs.
I don't want to feel like I'm contributing to putting these smaller
companies out of business and that's how I feel when I buy Windows.
I have used programs such as 98Lite and IEradicator (http://
www.98lite.net/) and Revenge of Mozilla (see http://
www.webattack.com/get/ros2se.shtml) all of which REMOVE Internet
Explorer from Windows and they work great. Microsoft has put Windows
File Protection into Windows
[[Page 26934]]
2000 SP2 and Windows XP so that these programs will not work. They
don't want the browser uninstalled because they want to use the
browser to make money (ie. ".NET"). In XP there are also
some folders that you cannnot delete from your own hard drive, such
as Movie Maker, MSN Gaming Zone, Netmeeting, xerox and Microsoft
Frontpage. It's MY hard drive and I should be able to delete
anything I want!
Here's a summary of what changes should be made:
1. Release an "operating system" only. It should be
free as part of the settlement to anyone who can prove they
purchased any previous version of Windows.
2. In this operating system, Windows File Protection must be
easily shut off for those who do not wish to use it.
3. This operating system must not include any of the programs
such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Image Viewer, etc., etc.
4. Microsoft can include these "extras" on the CD if
they want, but they must be installable and useable INDIVIDUALLY and
also uninstallable INDIVIDUALLY.
5. All evidence to Microsoft's web influences must also be
removed, such as Online Services, MSN, MSN Gaming Zone...anything
where they use the operating system to link to the web to make
money.
6. I would like the source code of this basic operating system
to be released.
7. The basic operating system must be released for the Windows
98 kernel even though it may soon be "obsolete" and also
for the most recent kernel (ie. XP) Any new Windows versions must
also be released with the free "light" version (at the
same time).
The "light" version must be a "full
version" in that it needs not to be installed OVER TOP OF an
existing version. For proof that one has owned a previous version of
Windows, any Windows CD-ROM issued since Windows 95 can be inserted
at the start of the installation and then the Windows Operating
System can be installed on a freshly formatted drive.
8. Someone in authority must be able to suspend all sales of the
full Windows versions if the "Basic Operating System"
version is not compliant or deliberately issued in an unuseable
condition or inferior to the full release.
9. The basic operating system version must be released promptly
with the threat of suspending all full version sales if not released
promptly. I think they should be able to easily do the 98 kernel
release within 6 months, the XP kernel release within 6 months, and
as I mentioned before any new version of Windows must have the
"basic version" released at the same time.
Thank you for your consideration.
J. Harvey
MTC-00020749
From: Mike Delano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Allowing Microsoft to provide used technology to poor schools,
with no plans for long term support, seems more like a reward then a
punishment. This company already monopolizes the market-Do we
really need to help them take more of the market share?
Regards,
Michael Delano
MTC-00020750
From: elizabeth jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39am
Subject: settlement
Leave Microsoft Alone!
Fight terrorism, not our great companies.
E. Jones
MTC-00020751
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39am
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,
James Carroll
294 Rowe Rd.
Selkirk, NY 12158
MTC-00020752
From: Grant Shearer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
Just thought I would throw my two cents in. I'm sure you've
heard this several (thousand) times before, but Microsoft is a
monopoly. If you don't believe it, just try to stop using their
product in your home or office. It is virtually impossible and not
because their products are so great, but because it is "what
everyone else uses". So, hardware manufacturers only write
drivers for Windows and software manufacturers only write code for
the Windows OS.
This isn't necessarily Microsoft's fault, but the fact that they
use their power in the market to try to force other people to use
their products is their fault.
Getting PC Manufacturers to only ship their operating system,
making their websites (msn.com in particular) unavailable to people
who aren't using their Browser, forcing people to upgrade their
Office suite for the mere sake of compatibility with the latest
files....these are all reasons why Microsoft's business practices
are less-than-ethical. As if their monopoly wasn't enough, they are
now allowed to advertise in U.S. Postal Offices?
http://www.macintouch.com/postoffice.html
I think this is going in the wrong direction.
I hope my comments have helped in some way. Thanks for the
opportunity to share.
Sincerely,
Grant Shearer
MTC-00020753
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir,
I am not a lawyer, but I am a computer professional. Microsoft
has, since its release of Windows 95, consistently behaved in a
predatory, and anti-competitive manner. The sort of slap on the
wrist that the Department of Justice is proposing will do nothing to
solve the problem, and doubtless will be interpreted by MS as a
license to do worse in the future.
Only harsh measures will prevent MS from behaving in a
monopolistic manner. Ultimately, I have grave doubts that anything
short of a breakup will work. At the very least MS should be
prohibited from acquiring any more of their competitors for an
indefinite period. Simply demanding that they improve their
behavior, with no penalties if the don't, and no checking to ensure
that they do, will accomplish nothing.
Thank you for your time,
James Jackson
MTC-00020754
From: Hynds, Patrick
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that we are now in the public comment period of the
Microsoft Settlement case. I would like to register my informed
opinion that finishing this matter as negotiated is the best course
for all of us. I work in the technology sector with a range of
technologies from IBM, Sun and Microsoft. This matter has distracted
a major part of our economy that when left to its own devices
produces miracles of innovation. The time has come to move on. I
have followed the case since the first and while I don't agree with
every turn of events, I do strongly feel that the current proposal
is appropriate so long as the matter ends.
As a background I would like to submit one further comment. I am
of the opinion that much of this case has from the beginning been
the device of strong lobby efforts by a few companies competitive
with Microsoft. I served in our armed forces as an Infantry Platoon
leader in the Gulf War not to defend the right of lobbyists and
lawyers to punish those they can't beat in the market, but to ensure
that our country remained free and economically strong. It pains me
to see us waste so much time, opportunity and money on the pretenses
that have been offered.
Thanks
Patrick J. Hynds
Captain, USA Retired
31 Emerald Drive
Derry, NH 03038
MTC-00020755
From: Mark Osbourne
[[Page 26935]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:02pm
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 go far
enough in punishing the illegal actions of the past, nor does it
adequately prevent those actions from being committed in the future.
I am especially concerned by the way that OEMs and competitors
is defined which seems to exclude non-profit, not-for-profit and
charitable organizations from accessing the information about the
application programming interfaces. Microsoft seems to have
incorporated into the settlement the ability to block alternative
operating systems (for example, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD) from
providing compatible interfaces.
This settlement, while it reaches a conclusion of the
proceedings, does little to penalize Microsoft for their actions,
nor will it effectively prohibit them from similar monopolistic
actions in the future. As another writer has said: "A wrong
that is not corrected is compounded".
Sincerely,
Mark Osbourne
171 Pleasant Hill Drive
Centerville, Ohio 45459
[email protected]
MTC-00020756
From: E. Kurtock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
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," states the AOCTP,
"not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever
seen."
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
MTC-00020757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39am
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,
Joseph D Buffington
12033 S Paiute St
Phoenix, AZ 85044-2116
MTC-00020758
From: Tuomey, Steve
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ,
Please do not accept this offer from the Department of Justice.
This offer gives no relief to the consumer, and does little to
prevent Microsoft from continuing its predatory ways. Force
Microsoft to compete on a level basis with the other software
makers, and allow software growth to once again fuel the American
Economy. Force Microsoft to develop/market/sell a "non-
bundled" version of it OS. This would allow users like myself
to use the OS that has the most stable drivers, with the browser
that has the most features, and the Instant Messenger with the most
security ...
Steve Tuomey
MTC-00020759
From: Baker, Gary (STP)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad (very bad) idea.
Gary
MTC-00020760
From: Mitchell, Edmund
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I would like to officially add my voice to the list of those
expressing the need for significant revisions to the Proposed Final
Judgement (PFJ). The current PFJ is so weak as to be a waste of
taxpayer money, and I find that offensive. There are so many
weaknesses it's hard to know where to start, so I'll just mention
what I think is the area in direst need: the failure to prohibit
anticompetitive license terms currently used by by Microsoft. Please
refer to: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html for documentation
of these problems.
Thank you for your time, and please act for the benefit of the
entire industry.
Edmund Mitchell
Programmer/Analyst
Micro General Corporation
918 Ulster Ave
Kingston, NY 12401
1/24/02
MTC-00020761
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39am
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,
virginia lawyer
21 wellington dr.
endicott, NY 13760
MTC-00020762
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:40am
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,
Betsy Salunek
30 Potter St.
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
MTC-00020763
From: Gary T Downing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Folks,
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. -
Gary Downing
215 Chester Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Work : 408.878-1936
Home : 650.322-1514
Email: [email protected]
[[Page 26936]]
MTC-00020764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust suit is a
give-away to Microsoft. It does way too little to stop Microsoft's
continuing unfair practices. In particular:
-The settlement as currently written appears to lack an
effective enforcement mechanism.
-It allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no
Microsoft operating system.
-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.)
-It 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.
-Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Open Source applications from running on Windows. Many APIs are only
available as add-on SDKs which conventional commercial developers
are allowed to ship with their software (and most software includes
some of these, it's the cause of the so-called "Windows DLL
Hell"), but this is denied to Open Source developers.
-It 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?
-It fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities
historically used by Microsoft.
-Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Windows applications from running on competing operating systems.
I urge you either reject the agreement or amend it in light of
the above problems.
Marty White
US Citizen & Resident, Computer Programmer, Computer Systems
Administrator
[email protected]
390 West Candor Road
Candor, New York 13743
MTC-00020765
From: Joshua Hatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. To let
Microsoft in any way benefit from their misdeeds would undermine
anti-trust legislation, and this is exactly what would happen if it
donated its own software and Windows-running computers to a market
that it does not yet dominate. The only equitable method of settling
this dispute would be for Microsoft to make any donations in cash
(and without any say in how that cash is spent) so that the
receiving parties are free to determine the best way to improve
their technological situation.
Thank you.
Joshua Hatch
1354 North Carolina Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-7309
MTC-00020766
From: Mike Koenig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I have been a member of the technology community since 1972, and
have watched Microsoft in action since it
MTC-00020767
From: richard.mccandless.aof1@ statefarm.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41am
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,
Richard McCandless
7 Bluff Park
Montrose, IA 52639
MTC-00020768
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41am
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,
Byron Bagnell
1381 Winder Lane
Salt Lake City, UT 84124-1448
MTC-00020769
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41am
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,
Peter Schiffke
365 Rte 111
A13
Smithtown, NY 11787-4761
MTC-00020770
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
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,
Robert DuFrane
3143 Readsborough Court
[[Page 26937]]
Fairfax, VA 22031-2617
MTC-00020771
From: Chris Corwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to voice my opinion in this matter. It is *not fair* that
a company with the practices that Microsoft has been proven to be
engaged in can continue to go on as if no crime has been
committed-or eve that a *little* crime has been committed. As
a web developer, I see the effects of their 900 pound guerilla
tactics everyday-making my job harder, unnecessarily.
Microsoft ought to be broken up into three divisions:
-Operating System (sans browser)
-Business Software (Office, Money, IIS)
-Entertainment software (Browser, Games, Media Player) Sent
using the Entourage X Test Drive.
MTC-00020772
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
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,
Elizabeth Puente
659 NW 38th Ave.
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442-7337
MTC-00020773
From: R. Duke Schnolis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I'd like to make a quick comment about the government settlement
with Microsoft in the Antitrust Case. I think it's a shame that a
company like Microsoft can continually illegally practice such
deplorable business as they do. To abuse the power of a monopoly, as
they surely have, is counter to good of our society. We need fresh
competition that can develop a good product over time without
getting cut out of the market by a company who can afford to take a
multi-year loss or coerce potential supporting technology companies
into flying only the microsoft standard. It's bad business for the
US and for the world, because we have no choice but to keep paying
microsoft for their continually degrading software, while they have
no accountability and no competition to keep them honest. A quick
check of the lack of security of the internet through microsoft
software has cost companies and individuals billions of dollars in
the last few years alone, and is a frightening harbinger of worse
things yet to come. Something must be done about it. The settlement
with Microsoft is not strict enough. Please do something to help the
American public and the world escape the shadow of the monopoly that
is Microsoft. Free the intelligent, enterprising individuals that
make up our society to compete fairly and openly.
Thank you.
R. Duke Schnolis
IT Analyst and Database Designer
CC:R. Duke Schnolis
MTC-00020774
From: Jud Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:46am
Subject: Antitrust settlement
I am very disappointed in the proposed settlement between the
DoJ and Microsoft, which seems to me to offer no meaningful
punishment for Microsoft's many flagrant violations of antitrust
law, and no effective restraint against further abuses.
Judson S. Leonard
TLW, Incorporated
2276 Washington St
Newton, Ma. 02462
(617) 964-3336
CC:Jud Leonard
MTC-00020775
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:44am
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,
Carole S
105 Schrempp Lane Ext.
Pine Bush, NY 12566
MTC-00020776
From: MACky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to let you know that I don't think Microsoft should
get off with just a slap of the wrist. There is no question that
they are guilty, and I don't want to see them buy thier way out of
this.
The company has shown how much contempt they have for the law
and this whole trial. I feel the original idea to break the company
up is still the best idea. Thanks for your attention.
Mike McCormack.
MTC-00020777
From: Erik Smith
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a BAD idea. Microsoft
obviously has NOT learned their lesson. Just a week ago they
announced how they have managed to get DVD set-top manufacturers to
support playback of their highly proprietary WMA (windows media
audio) files in lieu of the globally standard MP3 (MPEG Audio Layer
3) format supported by every platform and architecture
internationally. Sounds a lot like the original scenario that led to
this lawsuit/settlement doesn't it? The settlement does not do
enough to reprimand the obviously guilty party.
My tax dollars went to pursue this case of illegal behavior. My
tax dollars found them guilty. If you do not take a firm action you
will have not only wasted the tax dollars of all Americans but will
waste them AGAIN as new lawsuits will emerge for the EXACT SAME
illegal behavior. To sum up in a metaphor; it's time we spank our
child for being the playground bully. Lectures have failed and a 10
minute timeout is not going to stop a kid that feeds on the pains of
others.
Erik Smith
Network Engineer
Systems Administrator
MTC-00020778
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42am
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,
Andrew Boyd
13 Fieldstone Rd.
[[Page 26938]]
Elkton, MD 21921-8402
MTC-00020779
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am troubled by the Microsoft-DOJ settlement, as it appears
that expediency rather than corrective actions has been the
principle concern of the DOJ. It is my opinion that current
government computer policy provides preferential treatment for
Microsoft. I feel that one way to change Microsoft's behavior and
encourage competition is to use the immense purchasing power of the
government, at all levels.
I suggest that the DOJ consider banning the sale, use and
purchase of Microsoft software and hardware by all federal, state
and local governments for an extended period, say 10 years.
I suggest that all contracted products not require the use of
Microsoft software. By this I mean that when the government wants to
distribute a database on a CDROM, that the viewing of this database
require no runtime versions of Microsoft software on that CDROM or
in a personal computer.
I also suggest that all data stored at government (all levels)
computer sites, all data purchased by all levels of government be
stored in generic, non-proprietary, non-Microsoft formats. The use
of Microsoft data formats in currently distributed government, such
as Access essentially requires the public to purchase a Microsoft
product and further solidifies an ever expanding Microsoft monopoly.
Michael F. Branagan
10207 Green Holly Terrace
Silver Spring, MD 20902
MTC-00020780
From: Peter Doege
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello-
I think that the proposed settlement agreement is not adequate
to curb Microsoft's behavior in the future and is not sufficient
punishment for their behavior in the past.
Peter Doege
MTC-00020781
From: Sean Woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I have been following the Microsoft Antitrust case since the
beginning. I feel that the settlement reached between the Justice
Department, et al, and Microsoft is not in the public interest. I
cite the following:
1) The settlement's enforcement mechanism relies on having
people paid BY MICROSOFT police its behavior.
2) The settlement leaves loopholes that have the effect of
negating the spirit of the agreement.
2) Microsoft was proven to be a monopoly, and also had proven to
abuse its status as a monopoly. It should not be dictating the terms
by which the law will be enforced.
Thank you for your time,
Sean Woods
Senior Network Engineer
The Franklin Institue
email: [email protected]
vmail: 215-448-1089
MTC-00020782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
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,
Leroy Blondeau
90 Waters Bridge Cir
Covington, GA 30014
MTC-00020783
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45am
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,
Elden Brauer
221 Stuarton Dr.
Wheaton, IL 60187
MTC-00020784
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:44am
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,
Darrel Reaves
1295 Anchor Lane
Merritt Island, FL 32952
MTC-00020785
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47am
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,
Christine Amirault
106 Sprucewood Court
Bonaire, GA 31005-0317
MTC-00020786
From: d j
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have writing software for almost 20 years, much of that time I
have been using products from Microsoft. I have attained several of
Microsoft's certification levels and I do believe they employ some
highly-talented people.
Sadly, it is also evident Microsoft has resorted to business
practices that leave a great deal to be desired. I say sadly because
I feel their products are more than able to compete and win on merit
alone, yet in their
[[Page 26939]]
apparent quest and greed for total market domination, they have
crossed the over from competitor to tyrant.
I earnestly implore you to consider with great care the impact
your decision will have not so much on the present, but on the
future. History is rich with examples of too much power consolidated
in one place and few of them are pleasant. If others are not given a
level playing field to compete upon, then we deserve what we
get-no choice but one.
Microsoft should not be prevented from competing; this would be
wrong. They should be made to play by the same rules as everyone
else and penalized justly-as should anyone else-when
they violate the rules.
Sincerely,
Dexter W. Jones
MTC-00020787
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45am
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,
Adam Miller Jr.
1248H Balthis Dr.
Gastonia, NC 28054
MTC-00020788
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45am
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,
Todd Richard
1904 Knob Hill
Plano, TX 75023
MTC-00020789
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
Microsoft has a habit of killing alternatives. I don't know if
that's allowed or not in the USA. I guess it is; after all, it's
their business.
However, they do it with bad practices. One example is this
article (http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html), at the end of
which it is clearly explained what is usually Microsoft's strategy,
otherwise known as "embrace-extend-extinguish".
Not only do they often lie, but they also silently work on
crushing opposition at the same time (see http://lindows.com for
example).
I also resent Microsoft's long-practiced FUD (the term means
"Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt"): they tell lies to the public,
so that we are (or should be) inclined to fear alternatives to
Microsoft's products (Windows and others).
A simple example of this is the ever-changing way they talk
about Linux, never telling the truth. One day it is nothing, the
other day their biggest challenge, and they even dare to tell that
Linux (a Unix clone) is not secure (!!), and they shamelessly tell
that security lies in the usage of their Windows products! They say
each version is more secure than the last, whereas last version (XP)
"features" a security hole, such as has never been seen
before in Windows: you *only* have to connect to the Internet (no
nead to read mail, connecting is enough) to endanger your PC!
Microsoft products, in my opinion, have the right to exist as
any others. I even think that integrating Internet Explorer inside
Windows, as they did, is acceptable, in the light of recent
computer-desktop evolutions.
What I will never accept, though, and what I think Microsoft
should be condemned for, is their way of exercising pressure, and of
leveraging their presence on the PC desktops for ensuring their
growing monopoly on more and more areas: first operating systems,
next web browsers, then web languages (HTML extensions, Javascript
different from standard...), then multimedia formats and protocols
(streaming protocols...), and now they try the next last two steps:
servers (web, mail...) and internet applications (.NET).
Those issues are mostly from the point of view of a simple
computer user, which I am.
But I am also an engineer in computer-science, and as such I
stay on touch with news regarding MS-related issues. I won't
enumerate all the problems Microsoft behaviour is causing, because
Dan Kegel did it very well in his petition. That's why I suggest you
read his petition (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html), to
which I am a co signer.
Regards,
Yves Gablin
[email protected]
Cannes-France
MTC-00020790
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45am
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,
Jessie Ray
Box 861
180 Sunshine Lane
Columbus, NC 28722
MTC-00020791
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45am
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,
Barbara Abbott
5409 Kimberly Rd
Minnetonka, MN 55345
MTC-00020792
From: Liz Romney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Please reject the proposed settlement between the United States
and Microsoft. It
[[Page 26940]]
doesn?t not provide sufficient protection to the public from
Microsoft's predatory practices.
Sincerely,
R. Steven Romney
4259 Marquis Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84124
MTC-00020793
From: Craig Bellcurren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that the public are able to comment on the
Microsoft case using this address. I would like to briefly summarise
my opinions of Microsoft. My name is Craig Bellcurren, I am a self-
employed consultant and programmer for government bodies through-out
the south-west of the United Kingdom.
I have been using computers for a long time. My mother bought me
one for my third birthday, within a couple of weeks I was already
learning the programming language, BASIC. I grew up with computers,
some may say that my personality reflects this in many ways. Having
grown up with the things, I've been able to see the evolution. I've
seen them go from technical toys to productive solutions.
Microsoft have been around for a long time. I was aware of PCs
and the variants of DOS running on them. I was still stuck in the
land of Commodore and BBC Micro though. When Commodore died, it was
time to look to a new platform. I used PCs. I used various versions
of Unix available to me, I used DOS, and basically it was still a
time when computers were only for techies. Then Windows 3.0 came
along, soon followed by 3.1. The world was blown away. When Windows
95 came, packing more features and technology, and a better user
interface, PCs were finally ready for general consumption.
With each new version of Windows, we see more features, more
functionality. There are those that argue that by including all
these features, Microsoft makes it harder for competitors to get
their product to market. Personally, whenever I see a new feature in
Windows, I wonder which lucky company is getting a license fee from
Microsoft for inclusion of their technology. I see the integrated
features bringing ease of use to the end user. Not everyone grew up
with computers like I did, so I don't expect everyone else to find
them easy to use. With all the efforts of Microsoft, end users
finally are able to reach levels of productivity that were
previously unimaginable. The best bit is that they do not need
hours, days or months of training. They can teach themselves using
the resources supplied with Windows.
Instead of targeting Microsoft for uncompetitive behviour, I
personally would like to thank Microsoft for making computers
accessible to the general public.
Thankyou for your time,
Craig Bellcurren
MTC-00020794
From: Peter Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am writing to express my unhappiness with your settlement with
Microsoft.
I have been involved in scientific computing for more than 30
years. During the last eight years, I have found it more and more
difficult and expensive to do my job.
I believe this difficulty and expense can be traced directly to
Microsoft's effective monopoly in operating systems. For example, I
had based a significant amount of work on Digital Research's DR-DOS
because of some small, but significant, technical advantages. When I
bought it, my Microsoft software, such as Word, worked with it
easily. But when I upgraded to newer versions, my new Microsoft
software would work no longer.
The Microsoft customer service response was simple: they told me
that if I wanted to use their applications, I would have to buy
their operating system. At the time, Microsoft explained this as a
"technical incompatibility." We now know that Microsoft
designed this incompatibility intentionally, with the specific
purpose of forcing consumers onto the Windows platform. Microsoft's
conduct injured me directly. It certainly increased my cost and
reduced my time. I believe it was intentional. I believe it was
illegal.
And I know it was disproportionate to the remedy for which you
have settled.
Peter Olsen
P.O. Box 410
Simpsonville, MD 21150
410-997-8584
MTC-00020795
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47am
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,
BEVERLY KUBEC
27543 RIVERBANK DR.
BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134
MTC-00020796
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:48am
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,
Dolroes Stack
5850 Dodds Drive
Bettendorf, IA 52722
MTC-00020797
From: William Hegarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
First of all, I find it ironic that I needed to go to a British
website, www.theregister.co.uk, to find out that my Department of
Justice is soliciting comment on this matter. That said, I shall
move on to the matter at hand.
The proposed settlement is no more than a slap on the wrist that
will do little to introduce competition into the software business.
Although cutthroat competition in the hardware arena is resulting in
price slashes and improved products, the software business remains
at least unchanged, if not worse.
The average consumer is stuck with the software which comes with
the computer for any improvements are prohibitively expensive. Not
only that, they are usually bundled with other products that are not
desired or wanted.
For example, I recently completed library school. For one course
I wanted to index an old local magazine in the local library. Since
the library uses Access, Microsoft's database program, to index the
local newspaper I thought it would be good to do the same. However,
my computer came with Microsoft Works, not Office. I had to buy
Access if I wanted to do the project. So I went to Staples. I had a
choice. I could buy Access as part of the Office package, or I could
buy it alone. I ended up doing neither because both were too
expensive. What irritated me though, was that Access alone was
perhaps half as expensive as the entire Office package. In other
words, to buy the components of Office is almost twice as expensive
as the entire bundle.
Since I already have the operating system and some Microsoft
applications such as Word preloaded into my computer my preference
is to get more (for some reason non-microsoft programs are extremely
buggy
[[Page 26941]]
on Microsoft computers but we won't go there). The bundled pricing
of the Office programs makes that preference even stronger, to the
exclusion of Microsoft's competitors. I would be more likely to buy
the entire package even though I might prefer some other
presentation software to Powerpoint, or organizing software to
Outlook and so on.
It seems to me that Microsoft has not learned its lesson. For
that reason I am opposed to the settlement.
Sincerely
William Hegarty
MTC-00020798
From: Dennis Roitt
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:52am
Subject: Microsoft case
Attn: Department of Justice,
The fact is, this anti-trust 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. Money
sent to the states will be squandered, as we have seen with the
tobacco settlements. Our state is just using it to bloat the already
bloated bureaucracy.
The Clinton Administration's obsession with this case was a
precipitating factor in collapse of the Tech stocks. Bundling a
browser into operational software is no different than an automobile
manufacturer including a spare tire and jack with each new car. It
may be harder to sell aftermarket jacks and spare tires, but that is
free enterprise. Netscape does not have some God given right to sell
a "spare tire" product without the "car."
End this witch hunt. Stop prosecuting Microsoft.
Dennis J. Roitt, Sr.
MTC-00020799
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:50am
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,
R A Ferguson
1102 Weldon Road
Oak Ridge, NJ 07438-9517
MTC-00020800
From: mikey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:48am
Subject: MS Settlement
I believe the Microsoft has stifled development by its practices
and policies. They have worked hard to put any and all competition
out of business. Microsoft should not be allowed to force contracts
on other computer makers that requires inclusion of only Microsoft
software.
Also Microsoft has a policy of discrimination that needs to be
stopped. The discrimination is in the form of FAVORITISM. Primarily
of a religious nature. People of a specific religion are allowed
special favors that others of different religions are not permitted.
Microsoft publishes RULES people are supposed to adhere to in
associating with Microsoft , for instance with their News Groups.
This aforementioned discrimination is evident here as well. Since
people of a particular religion are allowed to violate these rules
on a regular basis by special permission from people of the same
religious preference.
If Microsoft is going to publicly publish rules then all people
should be required to adhere to them regardless of religious
preference.
[email protected]
MTC-00020801
From: John Kellems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I feel that Microsoft is being treated as if it were a cocaine-
snorting celebrity, rather than a multi-billion dollar monopoly.
Federal Judges have found Microsoft to be guilty, and instead of
taking meaningful action, which may prevent further abuses, you have
decided to ask them, politely, to please refrain from doing that
again. This is a travesty. This settlement allows Microsoft to
continue its business practices undeterred. At a time when the DoJ
should be sending a clear messages that this conduct will not be
tolerated by any business, you are sending an engraved invitation
for further abuse of power
I urge all the folks at the DoJ to reconsider this settlement.
With it you are undermining the faith the American people have put
in you, to do what is right. Microsoft needs to be punished, not
given a "get out of jail free" card.
Thank you for your time,
John J. Kellems
[email protected]
MTC-00020802
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:50am
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,
Harry Russell
9827 Walnut N103
Dallas, TX 75243
MTC-00020803
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:50am
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,
Greg Burke
1220 Broadview
Estes Park, CO 80517
MTC-00020804
From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft and Litigation
Please cease this litigation which can only slow our economy and
hurt not help the tax paying public. We need innovation to keep this
country on the right track not litigation.
MTC-00020805
From: Silviu Trofimov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should leave the US politics and come to the Canadian
economics-the US economy is currently a medium for politicians
not for enginners-best example is Enron case, and I bet this
is only the tip of the iceberg to come.
Leave Microsoft alone-it is your only hope.
Silviu Trofimov. PhD
Toronto
[[Page 26942]]
MTC-00020806
From: Jeff Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add the following to my previously mailed
comments: 10. When issuing a basic operating system for previous
Windows customers, the operating system MUST NOT have "product
activation".
Since it will be free, it can be installed on any number of
computers as long as a previous version of Windows can be supplied
as proof. 11. Sales of all new PC's with full Windows versions pre-
installed must include the "basic operating system"
version on CD as a condition of sale.
On Thursday January 24, I wrote: I just want to buy an operating
system. According to http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/
0,289893,sid9-gci212714,00.html, "An operating system
(sometimes abbreviated as "OS") is the program that,
after being initially loaded into the computer by a boot program,
manages all the other programs in a computer. The other programs are
called applications or application programs. The application
programs make use of the operating system by making requests for
services through a defined application program interface (API). In
addition, users can interact directly with the operating system
through a user interface such as a command language or a graphical
user interface (GUI).
An operating system performs these services for applications:
a.. In a multitasking operating system where multiple programs
can be running at the same time, the operating system determines
which applications should run in what order and how much time should
be allowed for each application before giving another application a
turn.
b.. It manages the sharing of internal memory among multiple
applications.
c.. It handles input and output to and from attached hardware
devices, such as hard disks, printers, and dial-up ports.
d.. It sends messages to each application or interactive user
(or to a system operator) about the status of operation and any
errors that may have occurred.
e.. It can offload the management of what are called batch jobs
(for example, printing) so that the initiating application is freed
from this work.
f.. On computers that can provide parallel processing, an
operating system can manage how to divide the program so that it
runs on more than one processor at a time."
I don't want any programs on the operating system. This includes
Web Browser, Media Players, Mail Readers, Newsreaders, Picture
Viewers, Firewalls, Games, etc.. Paint, Notepad, Wordpad and
Calculator I can live with as long as they can be uninstalled.
Microsoft's Problem is they also put applications on the Operating
System and don't let you uninstall them. I don't mind that they are
producing these applications but the fact that they are including
them for free ALONG WITH the Operating System gives them an unfair
advantage with respect to their competitors who also make programs.
I don't want to feel like I'm contributing to putting these smaller
companies out of business and that's how I feel when I buy Windows.
I have used programs such as 98Lite and IEradicator (http://
www.98lite.net/) and Revenge of Mozilla (see http://
www.webattack.com/get/ros2se.shtml) all of which REMOVE Internet
Explorer from Windows and they work great. Microsoft has put Windows
File Protection into Windows 2000 SP2 and Windows XP so that these
programs will not work. They don't want the browser uninstalled
because they want to use the browser to make money (ie.
".NET"). In XP there are also some folders that you
cannnot delete from your own hard drive, such as Movie Maker, MSN
Gaming Zone, Netmeeting, xerox and Microsoft Frontpage. It's MY hard
drive and I should be able to delete anything I want!
Here's a summary of what changes should be made:
1. Release an "operating system" only. It should be
free as part of the settlement to anyone who can prove they
purchased any previous version of Windows.
2. In this operating system, Windows File Protection must be
easily shut off for those who do not wish to use it.
3. This operating system must not include any of the programs
such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Image Viewer, etc., etc.
4. Microsoft can include these "extras" on the CD if
they want, but they must be installable and useable INDIVIDUALLY and
also uninstallable INDIVIDUALLY.
5. All evidence to Microsoft's web influences must also be
removed, such as Online Services, MSN, MSN Gaming Zone...anything
where they use the operating system to link to the web to make
money.
6. I would like the source code of this basic operating system
to be released.
7. The basic operating system must be released for the Windows
98 kernel even though it may soon be "obsolete" and also
for the most recent kernel (ie. XP) Any new Windows versions must
also be released with the free "light" version (at the
same time).
The "light" version must be a "full
version" in that it needs not to be installed OVER TOP OF an
existing version. For proof that one has owned a previous version of
Windows, any Windows CD-ROM issued since Windows 95 can be
inserted at the start of the installation and then the Windows
Operating System can be installed on a freshly formatted drive.
8. Someone in authority must be able to suspend all sales of the
full Windows versions if the "Basic Operating System"
version is not compliant or deliberately issued in an unuseable
condition or inferior to the full release.
9. The basic operating system version must be released promptly
with the threat of suspending all full version sales if not released
promptly. I think they should be able to easily do the 98 kernel
release within 6 months, the XP kernel release within 6 months, and
as I mentioned before any new version of Windows must have the
"basic version" released at the same time.
Thank you for your consideration.
J. Harvey
MTC-00020807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
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,
Emilie McLaughlin
10 Winterthur Court
Greer, SC 29650
MTC-00020808
From: Michael Charrier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It may Concern:
I wish to register my vote AGAINST the current proposed
settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust Trial. I have had the chance
to read many letters, essays, and articles that are freely available
on the web that more than adequately explain the "for"
and "against" issues. Many people have adeptly explained
the technical issues with how Microsoft can pervert the current
settlement to their own ends. I believe that they have very good
points and I will not attempt to repeat what has already been so
well explained.
I have a few questions for you to consider as you make your
judgement on wether or not to alter the proposed settlement:
1. In a country that was founded "by the people" and
"for the people", does not the interest of "the
people" come before the interest of a corporation?
Corporations are made up of people, but a corporation is not a
person itself. Is this not a case of the NEEDS of the many outweigh
the WANTS of the one?
2. Why does Microsoft continue to lie to the justice department?
Microsoft has, in the past and present, attempted to sway both the
public and the courts with "astroturf" campaigns (see:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13046.html) where they pay
people to influence our government and courts to their ends. Why
must they generate a false grassroots movement to push their
viewpoint? Would not customers who were satisifed with their
products be the ones running such a campaign, not Microsoft?
3. Has not Microsoft continued it's anti-competitive practices
during the trial and settlement phases? It seems they have with the
introduction of Windows XP and the new
[[Page 26943]]
licensing agreements that they are currently trying to enforce on
other corporations.
My concern is that Microsoft has become an entity that the
current administration and justice department is unwilling (not
unable) to control. It seems that our goverment and judicial system
are for sale to the highest bidder by allowing corporations to
continue to override the will of "the people".
"The people" (a.k.a. consumers) will continue to be at
the mercy of Microsoft's monopoly if the current proposed settlement
is accepted as-is. Please, do NOT let this happen.
Sincerely,
Michael Scott Charrier
President-Charrier Consulting International
MTC-00020809
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
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,
Mr. David Smith
1927 Queenswood Dr.
Apt. E101
York, PA 17403
MTC-00020810
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
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,
Al and Zeda Motes
1615 Palace Court
Valrico,, FL 33594-4819
MTC-00020811
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:51am
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,
JD Bryant
2123 W Hawken Way
Chandler, AZ 85248
MTC-00020812
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:52am
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,
Clint Tittsworth
655 Red Feather Lane
Woodland Park, CO 80863
MTC-00020813
From: Curtiss Hammock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
As a Macintosh user and new media developer, I feel I have a
certain interest in the Microsoft case. It only goes to show what
kind of business practices Microsoft engages in when they propose a
settlement that costs them little (are they really using the retail
cost of their software to gauge the value of the settlement?) and
gains them more market share. Good heavens! I thought they were
supposed to be punished?
If this settlement is allowed to stand, it will be a travestry,
pure and simple. I hope that the US justice system will not be so
mocked.
Sincerely,
Curtiss R. Hammock II -
eKetchum
A Ketchum Technology Company
[email protected]
404-879-9116
Visit our website! www.eketchum.com
MTC-00020814
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
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,
Lillian Hupp
2909 White Oak Lane
Bedford, TX 76021
MTC-00020815
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
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,
Laurie Lusk
[[Page 26944]]
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020816
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a small business owner, I would like to make sure my voice is
heard regarding AOL's (and other party's) poor treatment of
Microsoft. This latest suit from AOL Time Warner is a CLEAR
indication that they are simply lashing out! The failure of
Netscape's browser is related to inferior technology, rather than
harmful business practices by outside companies. They opened
themselves up for this when they went the route of end-user patching
& open source. Time Warner knew full-well what they were buying
in AOL... and did this based on the traffic it would bring into
their RoadRunner/Cable system. (In fact, Time Warner STILL
encourages use of Internet Explorer, based upon the fact that
Microsoft's product is better suited to what people really want in a
web browser.)
Time Warner received much business through this merger and were
in no way harmed by ANY outside company. Microsoft has been MORE
than helpful & willing to assist in improving inter-operability
of their products with 3rd parties, while companies like AOL have
continuously worked (wrongly) to thwart those efforts, in order to
protect (and miserly hoard) their private "club"
mentality of not allowing their customers free access to the rest of
the internet & its related technologies.
It is NOW time to leave Microsoft alone & let them continue
their quest of building quality software that helps businesses like
ours succeed right along with them... If ANYONE is harming other
businesses, it's NOT Microsoft.
Dynamically,
Jay D. Woodcook
SiteStudio.communications
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020817
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:54am
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,
Laurie Lusk
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020818
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:52am
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,
Bonnie Faughn
Box 7
Benton, KY 42025
MTC-00020819
From: David Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If, I write software, comparable to Windows and I have a similar
Internet access program, then I expect to put it's icon on to the
computer desktop. If it offends or is not going to be used, then
delete it from the desktop. The software program for MSIE doesn't
take up that much room. At one time, years ago, I ran Netscape and
paid for it too. This whole thing is becoming a farce.
Dave Gibson
Scottsdale, AZ
MTC-00020820
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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,
Pauline Flynn
P.O. Box 6273
Abilene, TX 79608-6273
MTC-00020821
From: Ed Lorenzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is way past time to drop this nonsense! Microsoft is the
acknowledged industry leader. Please stop trying to protect a bunch
of "also rans" by hampering Microsoft. The others will
soon be out of business because they deserve to fail.
BE Lorenzen
Prescott Valley, AZ
MTC-00020822
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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,
Virginia Smith
4165 Croton-Hardy Dr.
Newaygo, MI 49337-9509
MTC-00020823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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.
[[Page 26945]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Lusk
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020824
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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,
J. Charles Hill
233 Jackson Circle
Louisville , CO 80027
MTC-00020825
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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,
Dana Pierce
217 Hunters Way
Angier, NC 27501-7639
MTC-00020826
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56am
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,
Eugene Swansboro
230 Adams Drive
Salix, PA 15952
MTC-00020827
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56am
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,
Paul & Julie Patterson
369 Gun Club RD. #76
Woodland, WA 98674
MTC-00020828
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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,
Patricia Calise
4106 E. Northern Pkwy.
Baltimore, MD 21206
MTC-00020829
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55am
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,
Janice Spruill
5100 S. Carter Street
Ardmore, OK 73401
MTC-00020830
From: Mr Bleakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft settelment
Sirs: Please add this one voice as in favor of the Microsoft
settlement plan. The publics confidence in The DoJ has been severely
tested over this continued persecution concerning the supposed
Microsoft monopoly. Please allow us all to get back to our primary
reason to exist. To sell products and make a profit without
government interference.
Mr. Bleakley
MTC-00020831
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56am
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
[[Page 26946]]
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,
Jonathan Lusk
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020832
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56am
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,
Daniel Lusk
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020833
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58am
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,
Dennis Aksamit
198 Walton Street
Portland, ME 04103-3310
MTC-00020834
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:57am
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,
Deborah Maness
204 Whippoorwill cove
Georgetown, TX 78628
MTC-00020835
From: Blash Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Microsoft and the Department of Justice, after three years in
the federal courts, have finally managed to hash out the terms of an
agreement and are prepared to settle. I am utterly relieved. This
has gone on for long enough, and, while I believe the settlement
deals too harshly with the Microsoft corporation, I would rather see
it settled now than have it drag on interminably. The competitors of
Microsoft apear to be sore loosers and are seeking legal remedies to
save their failures in the marketplace. Microsoft does not deserve
the kind of treatment it has received, especially considering that
its actions were not detrimental to the consumer. I am a very
satisfied Microsoft consumer and I believe that the DOJ actions has
gone on long enough and that it is hurting the economy.
Microsoft has made a number of concessions in the agreement to
its competitors. Some of the terms agreed upon extend to policies
and products that the Court of Appeals did not find to be in
violation of antitrust legislation. The terms themselves are
designed to prevent future antitrust infringements and to allow for
a greater degree of competition within the technology industry.
Microsoft will, for example, share information with its
competitors regarding the internal working of the Windows operating
system. This will allow the competitors to place their own programs
on the Windows platform and compete on Microsoft's own
"turf." Clearly, this settlement is more than just a
slap on Microsoft's corporate wrist.
Sincerely,
Ed Blash
9735 Redd Rambler Drive
Philadelphia, PA 19115
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00020836
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58am
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,
Roger Halfpop
108 2nd St NE
Belmond, , IA 50421-1029
MTC-00020837
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56am
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,
Robert Nichols
374 County Road 249
Athens, TN 37303-6902
MTC-00020838
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 26947]]
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,
Alexis Larios
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020839
From: Phil Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please add my comments, as prescribed by the Tunney Act, to the
consideration of Proposed Final Judgment in the matter of
Microsoft's antitrust settlement.
I do not believe that the PFJ goes one-tenth as far as it needs
to in order to bring a semblance of competitive behaviors to the
computing marketplace. Without considerably more stringent measures
to punish and deter Microsoft from its entrenched tactics, consumers
will suffer the effects of a stunted operating system monoculture
for the indefinite future. The implications of this monoculture are
already staggering, measured by the millions in lost productivity in
the past year from the spread of malicious code-exploits of
the poor design and ubiquity of Microsoft platforms and
applications.
Phil Stevens
Systems Engineer
Tucson, Arizona
MTC-00020840
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:59am
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,
Roy Roy
2036 Lambert
Plano,, TX 75075
MTC-00020841
From: Moshe Weitzman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice:
The Microsoft Anti-Trust case matters to me. I'm worried that
the proposed remedy is insufficient medicine for the abuses
purported by Microsoft in the past. Microsoft has abused its
monopoly power in the OS market, to quench competition in other
markets. I know that they will continue to do so, if the remedy
lacks *teeth*. Please impose a remedy which truly restricts
Microsoft, and returns to the software industry a fair and honest
marketplace.
MTC-00020842
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
It is time for the Government to stop hounding Microsoft. The
vast amount of monetary resources taken from the U.S. taxpayers can
be better utilized elseware. The Federal Govt. does not have a
Constitutional duty or right to meddle in the free market and to do
so hurts the business market which we consumers have to ultimately
pay for on top of paying for prosecution. If Netscape can't manage
itself for profit than it either needs to change its strategy or
leave the browser market and above all, it needs to quit whinning
and blaming others for its incompentence.
Tom McMillan
Kennewick, WA
MTC-00020843
From: Jones, Stephen (S.C.)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly opposed to the proposed DOJ settlement with
Microsoft. The original settlement decree by Judge Jackson was in my
opinion totally justified. I believe that Microsoft's actions over
the past decade including the actions to monopolize the browser have
served to cost the American and world public in both economic terms
and in reducing the amount of innovation and choice afforded by
restricting the number of new products available. By reducing the
proposed settlement any from the original severe penalty in both
structure of Microsoft and economics constitutes implicit approval
of Microsoft's tactics which I cannot accept. Presently Microsoft's
integration of products makes them a monopoly in the computer
products marketplace, Microsoft must be split up to enable fair
competition in the marketplace.
Steve Jones
Supervisor, Electrical Electronic Controls Engineering
TH!NK Technologies, Ford Motor Company
MTC-00020844
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reading over much of the documentation on the proposed
Microsoft Settlement, I find many disturbing issues, loopholes, and
contradictions. I strongly urge the DOJ to have a formal and public
review of the entire document. Here are some (definitely not all) of
the issues I had while reading the documents.
For example, the definitions used in some of the wording in Part
VI of the PFJ differ quite radically from the Findings of Fact and
how those terms are used in every day language in technical circles.
Being a technology agnostic developer, I find these issues quite
disturbing.
For example, the Findings of Fact define 'Application
Programming Interface' ('API') to mean the
interfaces between application programs and the operating system.
This is fairly accurate, but could also include how other programs
interact with that program. 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. This is crazy, nuts, and way too contorted. A frequently
used and widely understood term such as API should either remain the
same as the Findings of Fact or be closer to the real world or
public definitions of "API". For example
www.techtarget.com defines API as:
"An application program interface (API-and sometimes
spelled application programming interface) is the specific method
prescribed by a computer operating system or by an application
program by which a programmer writing an application program can
make requests of the operating system or another application.
An API can be contrasted with a graphical user interface or a
command interface (both of which are direct user interfaces) as
interfaces to an operating system or a program" (http://
searchwin2000.techtarget.com/sDefinition/
0,,sid1-gci213778,00.html)
Another Example would be the definitions of "Microsoft
Middleware" and "Microsoft Middleware Product".
The Findings of Fact define "middleware" to mean
application software that itself presents a set of APIs which allow
the users t write new applications without reference to the
underlying operating system. This is close to the true meaning of
middleware and I guess in the context of the Microsoft case, true.
Definition J of the PFJ in no way shape or form comes even close
to this definition. There are many ways that Microsoft could side
step this definition and still continue with its practices. If the
DOJ was serious about improving Microsoft's conduct, it would not
allow such a narrow explication or definition. Defining such a broad
term in such a narrow light is laughable and amounts to a mosquito
attacking an elephant. This should be reworded to more closely
follow the Findings of fact or the more accepted definition:
"In the computer industry, middleware is a general term
for any programming that
[[Page 26948]]
serves to "glue together" or mediate between two
separate and usually already existing programs. A common application
of middleware is to allow programs written for access to a
particular database to access other databases." (http://
searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/
0,,sid26-gci212571,00.html) The use of such explicit wording
of version numbers for "Microsoft Middleware" should be
completely dropped. There is no standard or regulation governing the
use of version numbers and creates way to large of a loophole. More
acceptable would be the use of time instead of version numbers. For
example a period of 3 years is closer to reality instead of
"the next two versions" . What's to prevent them from
changing their versioning numbering to sidestep this definition? The
use of delivery method should either be dropped or reworded to
include all modern methods for delivery of software (for example
downloading from the web sites) and other electronic means.
The use of such a restrictive list of "products" in
Definition K of the PFJ is also laughable. Given the above
definition of "Middleware" shouldn't "Microsoft
Middleware Products" be subject to the same definition as the
rest of the world and not individually listed. If the DOJ was serous
about leveling the playing field, it would apply the same definition
to Microsoft's other products, that the rest of the programming
world. To use the definition found the Findings of Fact,
"Microsoft Middleware Products" would be anything that
they produce that is not the Windows Operating System, Not just the
products listed in Definition K. Thank you for your time and
attention in this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time
regarding this matter.
Curt Holmer
CLP, MCSD
Mobile: (703) 627-5453
Office: (703) 421-7282
Fax: (571) 434-8672
Internet: [email protected]
AIM: ciholmer
Groove:cholmer
MTC-00020845
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:57am
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,
Ruth Savage
1005 Begonia Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00020846
From: Neal Laur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this has dragged on way too long now and all it is
doing is costing we taxpayers money. It is time to tell these other
companies like Netscape et al to stop their trying to drain
Microsoft tofill their own coffers. They say it is to help the
computer users , but they will be the ones to get any money from
this , not the computer users. I can see no way that Netscape has
been harmed. I used to use Netscape when they had a better program
than did Microsoft , but now that the Microsoft program is better I
use it. Tell Netscape to get over it and if they want to get back to
where they once were , then come up with a better program again.
There is nothing that stops people from using Netscape if they want
to. I believe they just don't want it. I will tell you right out
that I am no big fan of Microsoft as I have just quit their
broadband internet service , or as I call it, their Non-service.
Sincerely , Neal Laur US Taxpayer
1608 Alder St. S. E.
Lacey , WA 98503
[email protected]
MTC-00020847
From: Lionel Woog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The Microsoft settlement value was best appreciated by the
capital markets, that is a as a huge win for Microsoft. It is a
travesty of justice to present this settlement as a reasonable
answer to Microsoft's monopoly. Nothing will ultimately prevent the
company to, among other things:
- Leverage their newly acquired SGI 3D patent portfolio to gain
monopoly power in what is now a very competitive field of 3D APIs.
- Continue leveraging gains from Monopoly power to enter the
console market with the X-Box, that will cost MS upward of 2 Billion
dollars before any profits roll in (isn't that a direct violation of
the Sherman Act ?)
Those are only minuscule example of what the company is bound to
do. We are drifting into a world where consumers will be caught
between Microsoft and AOL, a rock and hard place. With this
settlement the DOJ will kill innovation in the field, as no one will
venture capital to any venture they know will be killed by Microsoft
if it grows to any size deemed threatening.
Regards,
Lionel Woog, Ph.D.
MTC-00020848
From: Scott Prive
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am completely against the Microsoft settlement under review.
The playing field is not level, and the new proposal gives
Microsoft entirely too much wiggle room, and fails to punish them
for the laws they already broke.
Scott Prive
978-459-8191
registered voter
MTC-00020849
From: Richard Fryer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft overcharging? Operating systems cost FAR less now than
ever in the past and have much more functionality. Check the prices
during the 1990's at SUN, SGI, IBM, etc.
I suspect the monopoly law is badly flawed in the technology
based market we now have, but regardless of that, think that the
price of MS products is incredibly "fair" and a huge
value. Our current technological progress would be severely hampered
without this family of products.
My company depends on Linux for it's product line, but when WE
want to get work done internally, we use MS products, and are VERY
HAPPY with the prices, choices, and capabilities. You get letters at
all extremes. My extreme is that DOJ attorneys seems to hate
success! Why not focus on companies like Enron that are doing truly
bad things to their customers, employees and society?
Richard Fryer
897 Oak Park Blvd. #313
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
CEO, Beomax, Inc.
MTC-00020850
From: Casey Kolehmainen
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To who it may concern,
I believe the proposed United States versus Microsoft Settlement
does not "level the playing field" between Microsoft
(the monopolist) and other computer software vendors as any
settlement should. I feel that any proposed settlement or court
remedy should entail Microsoft:
-> to fully comply with software community open standards in
their respective markets.
-> for those Microsoft products where their isn't a community
open standard, Microsoft should sponsor in an independent standards
organization, a new standards body. Microsoft shouldn't lead such
standards body unless the majority of the voting members elect
Microsoft without regard to financial or other direct compensation
by Microsoft.
By this remedy, I feel the software community in general will
have a "level playing field", while yet allowing
Microsoft an opportunity to innovate as long as its above and beyond
the community open standard. Over time the community open standards
will evolve to include new features, of which Microsoft will have to
comply, and yet still have an opportunity to innovate by restarting
the cylce of incorporating changes that go above and beyond the
community open standard.
Thanks for your time.
[[Page 26949]]
Casey
Casey Kolehmainen
Systems Administrator
Tantivy Communications, Inc.
Melbourne, FL 32901
(321) 956-8846-office
(321) 863-0165-cell
[email protected]
MTC-00020851
From: roger pittman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly oppose the proposed settlement. Even if the many
loopholes were plugged it does far too little to encourage and
restore a competitive market environment, to punish Microsoft and
its management for the illegal acts for which they have been
convicted, or to discourage Microsoft from further anticompetitive
and illegal activity.
MTC-00020852
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:59am
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,
Stacy Ryan
1451 Beach Park Blvd
#220
Foster City, CA 94404
MTC-00020853
From: Troy Acuff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement for Microsoft is a BAD idea.
Don't do it.
MTC-00020854
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01am
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,
Greg Douglas
5542 Marie Drive
Zephyrhills, FL 33541-1991
MTC-00020855
From: Ahlstrom, Christopher (091)Contractor(093)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Shocking
The DOJ's settlement with Microsoft rewards Microsoft for
predatory behavior. By allowing them to contribute software and
hardware to schools, their monopoly is only cemented more. Bill
Gates is sneering inwardly, I'm sure. Steve Ballmer is laughing.
Microsoft employees are wearing "Department of Justice:
Antitrust Division" T-shirts. Microsoft has made a mockery out
of quality. Microsoft has made a mockery out of fair play. All of
Microsoft's code needs to be put in the public domain in order to
have any hope of having alternative operating systems written by
corporations. I'm frankly surprised that Bill Gates isn't seeing any
jail time.
Sincerely,
Chris Ahlstrom
CC:'ahlstromc(a)home.com'
MTC-00020856
From: Paul Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is not sufficient. There are many
problems it does not address, but I'm most concerned about lack of
protection for interoperability with so-called Open Source software.
It appears that Microsoft will be able to block access to
interoperability information because Open Source organizations don't
operate as conventional businesses (for instance, they don't have
business plans).
Open Source software, such as the SAMBA project, is used by
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of users worldwide. It
provides essentially free software which would most likely be
rendered useless by future generations of Microsoft software.
Microsoft has a history of changing protocols simply to block
competition.
Thank you,
Paul Brown
PO Box 428
Winthrop WA 98862
(509) 996-3211
[email protected]
MTC-00020857
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01am
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,
Bridget Morris
9081 Sainsbury Ct
Bristow, VA 20136
MTC-00020858
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
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,
Rick Shawver
W289 N2240 Louis Ave. #1D
Pewaukee, WI 53072-5059
MTC-00020859
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00am
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
[[Page 26950]]
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,
Nancye May
501A Harrell
Canyon, TX 79015
MTC-00020860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01am
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,
Gene Koch
5195 Browning Dr
Beaumont, TX 77706
MTC-00020861
From: Mueller, Andrew
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is BAD. The DOJ is being WAY too soft on the
MICROSOFT criminals.
-Andrew Mueller, SCSA
MTC-00020862
From: Randy Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea.
MTC-00020863
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:02am
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,
Randall Fabrizio
6240 Osceola Way
Arvada, CO 80003
MTC-00020864
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04am
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,
Pirooz Abir
1199 Quarry Commons Dr
Yardley, PA 19067-4021
MTC-00020865
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04am
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,
Kristi Nash
1011 East Waverly Drive
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
MTC-00020866
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:02am
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,
Richard Bay-Ramyon
12820 Cienega Rd
Hollister , CA 95023-9141
MTC-00020867
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05am
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,
Dale Robert
P.O. Box 6223
Minneapolis, MN 55406-0223
MTC-00020868
From: David Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The proposed settlement(punishment), as it stands, does not fit
the crime.
This is a criminal who has the means to repay society for its
crimes. I urge you to re-think your proposed settlement and increase
the punishment to these selfish, coldhearted monopolists.
-David Smith
[[Page 26951]]
MTC-00020869
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:07am
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,
Frank Hallum, Jr.
2850 Jay Jay Rd
Titusville, FL 32796-1725
MTC-00020870
From: Crdanner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly disagree with the present settelment, and feel
microsoft is geeting off free.
Other companies are watching this closley, to see what they can
get away with.
You must send microsoft a strong message, otherwise they will
continue to go as business as usual. The consumer should always have
a freedom of choice, but that went away when microsoft monoplolized
the market. There are many users that are Forced to use microsoft
products at work, as a company policy, and they use other operating
systems at home. I use OS/2, Linux and Windows at home. I have the
freedom to choose what to use and I do exactly that.
Hit them Hard, or they will get the last laugh, and continue to
break the law.
Curtis R. Danner, Aurora, IL
MTC-00020871
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05am
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,
John Guss
6435 Greyfield Rd
Fayetteville, NC 28303
MTC-00020872
From: Gideon Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09am
Subject: Business American Style
Dear Sirs:
Let's stop the harassment of Microsoft and let them get on with
their inovative and successful buisness. I am tired of the whining
and sour grapes from the second best crow
Thanks
Gideon Jones
MTC-00020873
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05am
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,
scott schaefer
301 east fairbrook
boise, ID 83706
MTC-00020874
From: Jeff Hanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not feel that the proposed settlement for the Microsoft
anti-trust case is an adequate punishment for Microsoft. I am not in
favor of it in its current state. Please consider my email as my
registering a vote of "no" against the current
settlement. A settlement that is more favorable to other companies
in the computer industry, does not give Microsoft such a strong
position in our public schools, and is actually a punishment for
Microsoft is what should be presented and agreed upon.
Thank you,
Jeff Hanna
MTC-00020875
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09am
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,
Gideon Jones
TX 77571-4232
MTC-00020876
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09am
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 zakula
3 deonwood
san anstonio, TX 78257
MTC-00020877
From: Matthew Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not satisfied with the settlement of the case with
Microsoft. Microsoft has deliberately and repeatedly over-stepped
its bounds, and it must be penalized to a greater extent than the
settlement currently allows. -
Best regards,
-Matthew Brown
CorData
Phone: (770) 795-0089
[[Page 26952]]
Fax: (404) 806-4855
Web: www.cordata.net
MTC-00020878
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:07am
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,
Loretta Copeland
502 W. Franklin St.
Marmaduke, AR 72443
MTC-00020879
From: Frank Verano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I have no objection to MS I. E. short cut on the desktop.
Netscape is there too. Why not stop the nonsense? Let Capitalism do
its work. That is how MS got to the top in the first place.
Drop the matter!
Frank Verano
MTC-00020880
From: John E. Fair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John E. Fair
President
J. Fair Systems, Inc.
336-992-2828
http://www.jfsi.com or http://www.jfairsystems.com
MTC-00020880-0001
January 23,2002
John Fair
935-A East Mountain Street
Kernersville, North Carolina 27284
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to you today to express my support for the
Microsoft antitrust settlement, which has been a long time in the
making. Three years have now passed since this lawsuit was enacted,
and during this time an exorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars have
been squandered in funding this lawsuit. Enough is enough.
I would hope that the federal government would not waste any
more time over the issue and enact the settlement that was reached
in November.
Further, it seems to me that the terms of the settlement are
very fair. Microsoft has agreed to disclose the internal interfaces
of its Windows system to its competitors. Beyond this, Microsoft
will also make the licensing rights to Windows available at a
constant rate to its competitors. In addition, Microsoft has also
agreed to be monitored by a watchdog group that will make sure that
Microsoft complies with the terms of the agreement.
I believe that the best path for the Justice Department is to
end this dispute once and for all.
Sincerely,
John Fair
00020880-0002
MTC-00020881
From: warren peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern
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
Warren Peterson
RR. 10 Box 88 H
Santa Fe,NM
87507-9402
MTC-00020882
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:10am
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 west
16710 telge road
Cypress, TX 77429-1331
MTC-00020883
From: Clint McIntosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft cannot be allowed to continue bullying the software
and hardware manufacturers of this country. And this recent
settlement that forces Microsoft to give hardware and software to
schools is absolutely the stupidest idea I ever heard of! This only
ENCOURAGES them to keep doing things "their" way. It
also gives them a NEW foothold into areas where they don't already
have a demanding lead. If you want to improve schools AND punish
Microsoft for their flagrant abuse of their power, make them pay $1
Billion to each and every state in the Union for the purpose of
improving schools HOWEVER THE STATE SEES FIT. If the states want to
use the money to build new classrooms, or give teachers raises or
buy Apple computers and software for their students, that is up to
them. Microsoft should not get any kind of tax deduction from it or
any kind of say in what the money would be used for. They need to be
punished and I don't mean "minimum security country club
federal prison" type punishment either. If the courts aren't
going to do the right thing and split up the biggest monopoly since
AT&T, then they should penalize them severely.
As a computer user, I am severely impacted by Microsoft's abuse
of power and unfair practices. I am not alone. Every computer user
in this country is affected the same way.
Clint [email protected]
MTC-00020884
From: Mike Dembski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I have found that Microsoft has so monopolized
the market that there is virtually no choice but Microsoft products.
When a consumber buys a new PC, Internet Explorer is already
installed, MSN is usually the default home page, Outlook express is
the email program, there are links to Hotmail, MSN messenger is
usually set up to automatically start, Windows media player is
already installed.
Furthermore, is the office application market, Microsoft has
shown that now that they have a lock on that market, they feel they
can afford to pump up prices, and make it difficult for the causal
user to move applications from one machine to another, but the same
measures will do nothing to stop conterfeit applications.
Microsoft is doing everything possible to stifle and stop ALL
competition. This is a monopoly and it must be stopped.
Mike Dembski
[[Page 26953]]
6409 16th St, NW
Washington, DC 20012
202 291 3951
MTC-00020885
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:10am
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,
Connie Parson
210 Garden Lane
Excelsior Springs, MO 64024-1213
MTC-00020886
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09am
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,
John Brooks
12330 Chessington Dr.
Houston, TX 77031-3205
MTC-00020887
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir/Madam:
I am opposed to the Proposed Settlement in the Microsoft vs DOJ
anti-trust trial.
I cannot be so eloquent as others, especially the Joint Open
Letter to the DOJ written by Dan Kegel (to which I have also
attached my support), but my reading of the proposed settlement
suggests to me that Microsoft is not really being penalized for it's
anti-trust actions.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Timothy J. Stegner
Bolton
MA
Senior Systems Engineer
Computer Corporation of America
MTC-00020888
From: Nasir, Robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: District Court Judge, US vs. Microsoft
In the matter of the proposed settlement of the Microsoft
antitrust case, I, as an American, and as an Information Technology
professional, urge you to waive any and all penalties against the
Microsoft Corporation.
All of the evidence to date indicates that the case against
Microsoft is unjustified. From my experience using the products of
both Microsoft and their competitors, I can state that Microsoft has
not competed unfairly, and has in fact created markets which have
enabled countless other enterprises to succeed.
And from my personal perspective, it is clear that Microsoft has
been only a benefactor to millions of business professionals and
home users, more so than any other single American technology
organization.
I hope when you examine the facts in this case, you will agree
the Microsoft deserves praise, not punishment, for their success.
Respectfully,
Robert C. Nasir, MCSE
12023 Leverne Street
Redford Township, MI 48239
313-937-9188
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,ericlakits
@aol.com@inetgw,...
MTC-00020889
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:12am
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,
Ben Thomas
7720 Deaver Drive
NRH, TX 76180
MTC-00020890
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11am
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,
jeffrey fuller
83 eagle chase
woodbury, NY 11797-2918
MTC-00020891
From: Eric Braun
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/24/02 8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric Braun
310 Edelweiss Circle
St. Michael, MN 55376
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars,
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than
[[Page 26954]]
bureaucrats and judges-will once again pick the winners and
losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry,
more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Eric Braun
MTC-00020892
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14am
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,
GERALD KOENIG
11174 SO. EVERGREEN DR.
SOLON SPRINGS, WI 54873
MTC-00020893
From: Jack Fenchel
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack Fenchel
185 Friendship Rd.
Beaver Falls, Pa 15010-5714
January 24, 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,
Jack Fenchel
MTC-00020894
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14am
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,
Mr. & Mrs. David Pink
4080 Orchard Road
The Dalles, OR 97058
MTC-00020895
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11am
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,
Stephen Aubuchon
67 Town Farm Road
Westminster, MA 01473
MTC-00020896
From: Dave Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case, and let them get back to
business.
Dave Garvie.
MTC-00020897
From: Gilbert Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings.
I remember my surprise and shock that the Department of Justice
had reached a settlement with Microsoft Corporation. After reading
the details of the proposal, I feel it is little more than a slap on
the hand.
I am not a fan for breaking up Microsoft. But I do feel that
they actively sought out and eliminated any competition to their
software products and services. Fortunately there have been a few
holdouts that have survived to this day, but Microsoft stills holds
almost all the cards.
Over the course of time I have used and supported many operating
systems. Some of them still exist and thrive in their smaller
markets. But I have watched Microsoft grow and overtake them all.
Microsoft didn't do it because it had a better product. In fact,
their rise can be summed up with this statement: Crummy product,
great marketing. They can sell million dollar oceanfront property in
Montana to a bum on the beach in Florida. The browser wars are dead
and Microsoft has won. But they didn't win fairly. They
systematically suffocated Netscape by undercutting them by giving
away Explorer, cutting off distribution channels and strong arming
people into putting their software in the premier locations or
installations.
Although Apple and Microsoft cozied up together in recent years,
Apple has always been really at Microsoft's whim. Microsoft did have
the best office product for the Macintosh platform. Without it, the
Macintosh with whither and possibly fade away. One little implied
threat that they would discontinue Office would definitely bring
Apple to its senses and support Microsoft's other software packages
over Microsoft's rivals. If I was Apple, it would get me shaking in
my boots to lose the Microsoft Office package.
But back to the browsers for a second. I used to use Netscape.
It was a superior product. I PAID for it because it was good. Then
Microsoft came along with Internet Explorer. It was a piss poor
product AND it was preinstalled with Windows. I didn't want it, I
didn't like it. I continuted to use Netscape. I chose Netscape
because it was better, more stable, and had all the features I
wanted. But as time went on and Explorer became more and more a part
of the operating system, I had no choice. I shake my head as I look
at my desktop right now while typing this message. I am running
Microsoft Windows 2000, using Internet Explorer and Microsoft's
Hotmail service. I used to run so many applications from different
vendors.
[[Page 26955]]
But they are no longer there. And I wouldn't dare install Netscape
on my system as it doesn't coexist with Microsoft products very well
anymore. I am not sure if that is by Microsoft's design or the fact
that Netscape has been beaten down so much, they cannot afford to
make the superior product they used to create.
I urge you to reconsider your mild treatment of Microsoft. It is
a MONOPOLY. They have used tactics that date back to the the likes
of railroad monopolies. It was not acceptable then. It is not
acceptable now. We are in a capitalist, Democratic, society. We have
freedom to choose where, what, when, how, and why on almost every
aspect of our lives. Microsoft took away some of my freedoms. My
freedom of choice was taken away. Frankly, that leaves a very bitter
taste in my mouth. It is up to you to rectify the situation. You are
the law and the guardians of what our forefathers and those after
them have put into place. Please do the right thing and scrap this
watered down agreement. It does no one in this country and the world
any good except for Microsoft.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
-gilbert
Gilbert Ball
PO Box 231253
Tigard, Oregon 97281-1253
MTC-00020898
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
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,
Harold Anderson
4755 Saddlebrook Ave
Springdale, AR 72762-0453
MTC-00020899
From: Charles T Mattice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re.: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
As a US Citizen that is involved in the IT community, I have
been following this case with interest.
I am submitting these comments as my rights under the tunney
act.
I have reviewed the proposed final settlement and cannot agree
with it. I find that the proposed settlement by the nine states and
DC would be a more adequate correction and believe that the citizens
of the United States could fully comprehend this action.
If you dicide to the final settlement proposed by the USDOJ then
this would be a further stepping stone for Microsoft to implement
further monopolistic controls and actions on the citizens of this
country and could be the demise of open source software.
Sincerely,
Charles T Mattice
MTC-00020900
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
Dear Sir or Madam:
I'd like to add my comments to the Microsoft Settlement case. As
it stands, feel that the current ruling serves no purpose but to
help Microsoft gain a larger hold on computers in the schools. I
also feel that the state of the economy should not enter into the
punishment phase. Some ways I feel that would help stop the monopoly
of Microsoft are:
Microsoft should not be able to donate software to schools as
part of the settlement. If they want to, they can contribute cash so
that school administrators can chose their own operating system. In
actuality, it costs Microsoft next to nothing to push out the CD's,
and of course, they would be getting a tax reduction for the retail
price.
They win on both sides of the coin.
Microsoft file formats for their products be opened up for open
source systems or proprietary systems.
The price of Windows should not be part of a computer purchase.
Computers should be available without an operating system, and if
the consumer wants it pre-installed, it should be at the same price
for all consumers.
Microsoft should open the Windows application programming
interface (API) to allow other vendors to write applications on an
equal footing with Microsoft.
All networking protocols should be published fully and approved
by an independent network protocol body.
Thank you for your time,
Nicholas P. Holowaty
114 Rowland Drive
East Hartford, CT 06118
MTC-00020901
From: Charles Ellmaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs/Madams-
It appears that only Microsoft (a very capable firm, obviously)
has the power to turn a trust-busting suit to its own advantage.
Having read that Microsoft wanted to compensate the world for
its misdoings by giving away free software/hardware to schools, I
was flabbergasted. I have no doubt that this software would not be
targeted to schools that already use Microsoft software but to those
that use someone else's (Apple's, perhaps?) A schoolchild could
figure out where this would lead. My understanding is that this
"remedy" has been quashed, or at least I hope so.
Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. You know the
details, but allowing Microsoft free rein to dictate standards which
they will control, especially over something as open and powerful as
the internet, is a folly of unbelievable proportions (and one with a
host of unforeseeable consequences to go with the foreseeable ones).
Even outside of the United States (I am currently working in Sierra
Leone), the reach of Microsoft is basically absolute. My own head
office tried to forbid my use of non-Windows software simply because
"we use Windows," they said. This even though my
overseas office uses compatible Microsoft Word and Excel, but on
Macintoshes. Obviously Microsoft's reach and influence already
exceed all bounds of reason. Please do not allow them even greater
control over the oxygen that every organization breathes:
information and its movement.
Charles Ellmaker
6 Logan Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Regional Director for West Africa
The Center for Victims of Torture (based in Minneapolis)
Freetown, Sierra Leone
MTC-00020902
From: Jim Roscoe
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Roscoe
4500 Duke St. #201
Alexandria, va 22314
January 24, 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 26956]]
With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying
the hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats
and judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jim Roscoe
MTC-00020903
From: Fulford, Domonic
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
Subject: microsoft settlement
this settlement represents a total cave in to Microsoft and will
lead to further issues stemming from Microsofts stranglehold on the
Browser consumer o/s market
Dominic fulford
MTC-00020904
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14am
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,
Dr. William Pelletier
800 Huntsford
Troy, MI 48084-1614
MTC-00020905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14am
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 SHERRIS
9157 EMERSON AVE
SURFSIDE, FL 33154-3113
MTC-00020906
From: Charles Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally am disappointed with the settlement.
Big business needs some definitive.
I have a computer business and run into numerous things while
building systems that smack of Microsoft's explicit efforts to
discourage non-Microsoft installations.
Obviously they aren't capable of providing an open product in
their near-monopolistic hold on the industry. That's where I hope
the government can maintain at least the handholds to permit
competition. If nothing else the licensing and cost of Microsoft
products is oppressive to small businesses and homeowners as
evidence of Microsoft's stranglehold on the industry.
I applaud Microsoft's standardization of our software industry,
but we need to permit avenues for competition for the likes of
Netscape, Linux, Corel and other struggling competitors.
Chuck
Charles E. Cooper
Applied Research Laboratory
The Pennsylvania State University
(814) 865-2020
[email protected]
MTC-00020907
From: Alan McConnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
Subject: Comment on DoJ v Microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
It seems to me clear that Microsoft has violated the anti-trust
laws, and I agree with Thomas Penfield Jackson's original decision
to split Microsoft into two companies, one an operating system
development company(OSD), the other an applications development
company(AD).
If this were done, the AD company would clearly port its
applications to all major platforms, including the big Unix players:
Linux, Sun, and SGI. This would in turn foster competition among the
various operating systems. This is clearly beneficial, not only to
the industry, but to the economy as well.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan McConnell
9805 Gardiner Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20902
MTC-00020908
From: Alfred Thompson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfred Thompson
2 Kimball Terrace
Danville, NH 03819-5102
January 24, 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. While
Microsoft has not been perfect they have made computers easier to
use for everyone. The cost of software is more reasonable today than
it ever was. If other products were better then what Microsoft sells
than people would be buying them. We have seen the market drop poor
products for good ones over and over again. Just look at the history
of products that HAD monopolies in spreadsheets and word processing
that are now gone because THE MARKET decided a new product was
better. The computer market is working, let's leave it alone.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alfred C Thompson II
MTC-00020909
From: Jim Mowreader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
MTC-00020909-0001
This is a bad settlement. I shall extract a few of the pieces
that are especially bad and comment on them:
"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. Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for
a Windows Operating System Product without having first given the
Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the proposed
termination and not less than thirty days" opportunity to
cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Microsoft shall have no
obligation
[[Page 26957]]
to provide such a termination notice and opportunity to cure to any
Covered OEM that has received two or more such notices during the
term of its Windows Operating System Product license."
The problem? "Covered OEM." The definition of a
Covered OEM: "Covered OEMs" means the 20 OEMs with the
highest worldwide volume of licenses of Windows Operating System
Products reported to Microsoft in Microsoft's fiscal year preceding
the effective date of the Final Judgment. The OEMs that fall within
this definition of Covered OEMs shall be recomputed by Microsoft as
soon as practicable after the close of each of Microsoft's fiscal
years."
No one else is protected by paragraphs containing this phrase.
More to the point, the 20 largest OEMs won't need to be affected by
this document; these companies are loyal to Microsoft anyway and
they sell enough Microsoft product that they can be affected by
silly little flings with Linux or Netscape and still make Microsoft
vast sums of money. And should one of them happen to start selling
enough non-Microsoft product that they fall off the top-twenty list
in Redmond, they become a non-covered OEM and thereby lose the
protections of this agreement.
"Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not
(a) automatically alter an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts
or menu entries installed or displayed by the OEM pursuant to
Section III.C of this Final Judgment without first seeking
confirmation from the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the
end user for an automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration
of the OEM's configuration until 14 days after the initial boot up
of a new Personal Computer. Microsoft shall not alter the manner in
which a Windows Operating System Product automatically alters an
OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than
in a new version of a Windows Operating System Product."
This is missing a few words: "initial boot up *by the
ultimate purchaser* of a new Personal Computer." Computers are
initially booted up at the factory for quality control purposes. If
the 14-day clock starts ticking the moment the machine is booted up
at the factory, the purchaser can lose all protection under this
paragraph since it can take more than 14 days to get a computer
through the supply chain from the factory to the point of purchase
and into the hands of the consumer.
"Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the
Windows Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft Middleware
Product in any instance in which:
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."
Subparagraph 2 kills all the previous requirements for Microsoft
to publish APIs and so forth. ActiveX is, or at least should be, a
published standard. By redesigning Internet Explorer, or Windows
itself, so that some of the "functionality consistent with a
Windows Operating System Product" is contained in an ActiveX
control which only Internet Explorer can invoke- it's not a
technically difficult challenge-this agreement guarantees that
Microsoft Middleware will always be invoked.
Also, Section VI, Paragraph K (definition of Middleware) states
clearly that Middleware is only that software Microsoft issues to
upgrade Windows; nothing in this paragraph precludes Microsoft from
invoking the non- Middleware version of Internet Explorer which was
an integral part of your Windows installation.
"B. Appointment of a Technical Committee
1. Within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties
shall create and recommend to the Court for its appointment a three-
person Technical Committee ("TC") to assist in
enforcement of and compliance with this Final Judgment.
2. The TC members shall be experts in software design and
programming. No TC member shall have a conflict of interest that
could prevent him or her from performing his or her duties under
this Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. Without
limitation to the foregoing, no TC member (absent the agreement of
both parties):
a. shall have been employed in any capacity by Microsoft or any
competitor to Microsoft within the past year, nor shall she or he be
so employed during his or her term on the TC;
b. shall have been retained as a consulting or testifying expert
by any person in this action or in any other action adverse to or on
behalf of Microsoft; or
c. shall perform any other work for Microsoft or any competitor
of Microsoft for two years after the expiration of the term of his
or her service on the TC."
Who will they get? Microsoft's business covers all segments of
the computer industry; there is no company in this industry that
Microsoft doesn't at least technically compete with. I spent a lot
of time thinking of companies who could supply unencumbered TC
members, and couldn't come up with one name. Even someone like
Siebel, who makes customer relations management, or CRM,
applications, could be considered a competitor-Microsoft
doesn't make a packaged CRM product, but you can do CRM in Microsoft
Access so Siebel is a Microsoft competitor. Not even academia is
immune: Microsoft has extensive consulting and advisory contracts
with university professors. If Microsoft wants to get nit-picky
about this, and they will, then no "expert in software design
and programming" will be eligible to sit on the TC.
"C. Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer
1. 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."
This is like ordering the Medellin Cartel to appoint an internal
compliance officer from their own staff to make sure they don't sell
cocaine. Or directing the Chicago Mafia to appoint one of its
mobsters as an internal compliance officer to ensure they shut down
their gambling operations. An internal compliance officer is
necessary, but to ensure that this officer ensures Microsoft's
compliance with the settlement, he or she must come from outside
Microsoft and must not be on the Microsoft payroll. "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."
Why only a one-time extension? Microsoft has a history of
ignoring court orders, consent decrees and other conduct remedies.
Allowing only one extension basically invites Microsoft to engage in
a pattern of willful and systematic violations right up front,
knowing that it can only be hit with one two-year extension. After
it receives its two-year extension, the absence of other penalties
for non-compliance basically means Microsoft will be free to do
whatever it wants.
""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."
This screws up the whole "Internet Explorer is
Middleware" argument. Internet Explorer is an integral
component of Windows; in fact, it's the component of every version
of Windows since Windows 98 that provides the Windows user
interface.
Subparagraph I is just strange: according to it, the version of
Internet Explorer 6 which comes built in to Windows XP is not
middleware, but the version of Internet Explorer 6, which does
exactly what the built-in version does, is middleware. I believe
this line is enough to get the whole agreement thrown out in court,
since the Settlement contains no wording upholding the rest of the
Settlement should parts of it be found invalid.
Subparagraph 2 is meaningless. Microsoft trademarks everything
they make and every distinctively-named component of everything they
make.
Subparagraph 3 is circular logic-"Microsoft
Middleware does the same thing as Microsoft Middleware." (I
never would
[[Page 26958]]
have guessed!) Subparagraph 4 is laughable. Very few computer
applications put the user interface elements in one program and the
functionality elements in another. Wolfram Research's Mathematica
(which is designed so that the user can construct a data set on his
or her personal computer then transmit it to a large shared computer
for processing) and applications used to control industrial
machinery are designed this way; no middleware application and
certainly no Microsoft middleware application shares this
construction. "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."
Unless, of course, it's a service pack for the Internet Explorer
you received as part of your Windows installation, and then it's not
middleware. This also allows them to continue to bar non-Microsoft
middleware from being loaded by their OEMs-if Middleware is
distributed separately from Windows, then a clean load of Windows
contains no Middleware (because Internet Explorer is an integral
part of Windows), and therefore allowing non- Microsoft middleware
to be loaded would put Microsoft at a competitive disadvantage since
there is no Microsoft middleware on these machines.
""Microsoft Middleware Product" means
1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's
Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger,
Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows Operating System
Product, and
2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or
sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is
part of any Windows Operating System Product
a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software or
b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that-
i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by
Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows
Operating System Product;
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product; and
iii. is Trademarked.
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."
I am confused here. A saw is a product. Cutting wood is a
functionality. I can't sell you "cutting wood" except as
labor, but I can sell you a saw or wood that has been cut.
Similarly, Microsoft can't sell "Internet browsing" but
they can sell an Internet browser. Functionality is not a product. A
product is a product.
If, on the other hand, "middleware products" are
actual products and not "functionalities," this
paragraph seems to be another way to circumvent the whole agreement.
Since the inbuilt version of Internet Explorer is a
"middleware product" instead of
"middleware," they can invoke it then claim that they're
following the letter of the agreement-they didn't invoke the
clearly defined "middleware" but rather the
"middleware product." And they will be right.
Subparagraph b seems to have a lot of "weasel"
phrases in it-phrases that are intended to let Microsoft
"weasel" the product out of the agreement. To get a
product declared "not a middleware product" they need
only release it as part of a new Windows release. Microsoft does
this regularly-there is not much difference between Windows XP
and Windows 2000, for instance. Subparagraph ii goes without
saying-Microsoft is not innovative and its products all have
functionality similar to non-Microsoft products. Objection to
subparagraph iii is the same as before-all Microsoft products
and discernible parts of products have trademarked names.
""Microsoft Platform Software" means (i) a
Windows Operating System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware
Product."
This is a strange one indeed. It seems to define Internet
Explorer for the Macintosh as Platform Software.
Cut the bull and declare Internet Explorer
"middleware" no matter how the user gets it. Not three
things-middleware if you download it, middleware product if
it's integrated and "platform software," whatever that
is. ""Personal Computer" means any computer
configured so that its primary purpose is for use by one person at a
time, that uses a video display and keyboard (whether or not that
video display and keyboard is included) and that contains an Intel
x86 compatible (or successor) microprocessor. Servers, television
set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles, telephones,
pagers, and personal digital assistants are examples of products
that are not Personal Computers within the meaning of this
definition." The industry is moving toward "computing
everywhere"-Microsoft's Xbox video game console,
Ultimate TV digital video recorder, PocketPC handheld computers and
WebTV set-top box are products Microsoft makes either software or
the whole box for, and these are markets for which this settlement
does not proscribe anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft in by
virtue of this paragraph.
""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."
Giving Microsoft sole discretion as to what comprises a Windows
Operating System Product is what got this industry into trouble in
the first place. It also eliminates one of the more effective
conduct remedies: forcing Microsoft to produce a "bare
bones" version of Windows. It will guarantee that Microsoft
will continue in its anticompetitive ways.
Thank you for your time
-Jim Mowreader
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00020910
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. In fairness it
should be much harsher on Microsoft.
David Wack
Research Assistant Professor
Dept. of Nuclear Medicine
University of Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
MTC-00020911
From: Paul Simons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thanks for this opportunity to comment. This concerns both the
argument that Microsoft is wrong to include various additional
programs with operating systems, and that including the Internet
Explorer browser specificly is wrong.
1) Many vendors very succesfully sell software similar to that
included by MS-Adobe and Macromedia for graphics, for example
Photoshop. These vendors would be out of luck without Windows for
their programs to run on.
2) The Netscape browser is and has been for years free to
download. How their logic works-they can give their browser
away, but Microsoft can't- makes no sense.
3) Microsoft has been successful due to its own hard work. If
the judges really want to understand this, let them try writing a
few programs themselves. This is not meant to be disrespectful,
rather to provide insight.
4 )Including various software items with an operating system is
like including an automatic transmission, a heater, and a radio with
a car.
Paul Simons Levittown PA
MTC-00020912
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to register my opinion about the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I am frankly appalled that the government would even
consider such a weak punishment, if it indeed even constitutes a
punishment at all. On the surface it might appear that it is in some
small part even handed, but since so much of the final effect
depends on implementation, I have less than no faith that it will
have any significant impact on the monopolistic practices of
Microsoft. This issue is a very large one for me-I believe
[[Page 26959]]
that my job depends on reigning in the excesses of Microsoft. Please
consider mine a passionate vote for a serious punishment for
Microsoft-not what is currently being considered.
Jim Stiles
Manager of the University Systems Group
Tufts University
MTC-00020913
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I would like to offer my opinion on the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. This settlement gives hardware vendors slightly more
freedom to bundle non-Microsoft products. It establishes fair
pricing for Windows operating systems for OEM's. It requires that a
small handful of software, called "Microsoft Middleware
Product" be removable. That's it?
This settlement will provide no relief to competing companies,
to consumers, or to businesses who use Microsoft products. It
maintains Microsoft's near-monopoly and sends them a strong message
that nobody can or will stop them.
I believe in free markets and I think the government should be
involved as little as possible. However, this nation has been hurt
by the actions of Microsoft. Microsoft has squashed competition and
innovation, users have paid inflated prices, consumers have little
actual choice in desktop operating systems, and seriously buggy and
insecure Microsoft software is now (sadly) the norm. The United
States had an amazing lead in computer and software technology which
we have essentially thrown away.
In short, this settlement doesn't settle anything. Please
reconsider adding some penalties or provisions that will make a
positive difference. We, the citizens and consumers of this country,
will be worse off rather than better if this settlement is adopted
as proposed.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Paul Miller
11 McQuade Brook Road
Bedford, NH 03110
603/472-9244
[email protected]
MTC-00020914
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17am
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,
j. rogala
p.o. box 2152
vernon, CT 06066
MTC-00020915
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
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,
Thomas Suter
5621 Echodell Ave. NW
North Canton, OH 44720
MTC-00020916
From: Charles Meins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs;
I am very unhappy with the proposed Microsoft settlement. It
will in no way break the stranglehold that this company exerts on
the information technology market, a stranglehold which extends from
the first piece of information loaded in the computer at bootup (the
"boot sector") to last image on the screen at shutdown.
Given the competitive nature of the computer hardware market, I find
it implausible that no major vendor has attempted to differentiate
themselves from the pack by offering a unique feature such as this:
the pre-installation of Linux along with Windows on their computers.
A "boot manager" (software which has been widely
available for many years) would allow users to choose which
operating system to load when they start their computers. This would
involve very little added cost to the vendor while offering the
consumer a painless way of trying out an alternative operating
system which has received considerable popular press. The fact that
no major vendor has made such an offer is prima facie evidence of
the control exerted by Microsoft by means of the software pre-load
agreements it dictates to hardware vendors. I would propose
therefore an alternative settlement: mandate that Microsoft provide
other operating systems in addition to their own in a boot manager
arrangement. There are a wide variety of operating systems that
could be used. Some, such as Linux, are available without direct
cost to Microsoft. Others, such as OS/2, would involve financial
negotiations with third parties. (There are many other mature and
powerful operating systems, e.g., Solaris, BeOS, AmigaOS, and
NextStep, whose financial restrictions are unfamiliar to me.)
Microsoft has been able to exert undue influence on the software
industry through it's control of the boot sector. Breaking this
control would be a simple and effective method to bring competition
back into this vital sector of our economy.
Sincerely,
Dr. Charles Meins, Jr.
MTC-00020917
From: John Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The best settlement of the case against Microsoft is to leave
Microsoft alone. This government meddling with business is anti-
American, and should be stopped. Anti Trust is anti-American, and is
much worse for America than Islam.
John Phillips
MTC-00020918
From: Armstrong
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 9:21am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I do not agree with the porposed Microsoft settlement.It's just
another avenue to unload their software on another generation.
Bill Armstrong
Regina, SK
Canada
MTC-00020919
From: Brenan Tarrier
To: Microsoft ATR,Brenan Tarrier
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I would like to contribute to the public comment period on the
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I have been disappointed in the
Bush Administration's recent leniency towards Microsoft. I have read
about the current settlement and am not in favor of it in its
current state. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have
interfered with the free-market ideals this country was founded on.
Countless entrepreneurs and small businesses have failed due to
Microsoft's misconduct. Innovation and creativity have been hindered
not only in the field of computing, but also in other related fields
such as art and engineering.
Any settlement conditions offered by the Justice Department
should reflect not only the past crimes described in the Findings of
Fact, but should also prevent Microsoft from engaging in future
misconduct, especially illegally expanding its monopoly.
We as a country can no longer afford the inefficiency produced
by the anti-competitive actions of a monopoly. A strong
[[Page 26960]]
settlement which punishes past crimes and addresses future conduct
is necessary. Litigation should continue in this case if Microsoft
does not admit to illegal actions and accept a suitable punishment.
Thank you for your time in reading this letter.
Brenan Tarrier
Briarcliff Manor, NY
914-747-1120
MTC-00020920
From: Ricardo Villar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft/AOL
Dear Sirs,
When will this ridiculous harassment against Microsoft end? One
would think that September 11 would have taught some lessons of
unity and getting all together to fight a common enemy. The consumer
has chosen IE over AOL. In democracy that means the people have
chosen. Are you going to turn democracy around and find ways for
people to pay more for what is available nowadays? Instead of
accepting AOL case against Microsoft, why don't you force them to
invest more in R&D, to come up with better products, better
pricing, etc.?
It's disgusting the impression you are giving to the world of
yourselves, your system and, as a whole, the American people. I'm
ashamed.
George Villar
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020921
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
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,
Damian Westermann
2331 1/2 Ogden Ave
Superior, WI 54880
MTC-00020922
From: John Morales
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is the engine of the modern technology information
economy. They have created millions of jobs with their software and
development support.
THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF THAT CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN HARMED. It was
never even addressed.
So saying, the court filings and procedures show that Microsoft
has acted in ways that are unfair to their competitors (not
consumers). The DOJ closing this case was the right thing to do.
You must pressure the hold-out states to settle.
John Morales
[email protected]
(904) 370-6278
MTC-00020923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
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,
A Bucha
PO Box 4129
Kerrville, TX 78028
MTC-00020924
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
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,
Robert Mumby
222 Rolling knoll Dr
Bel Air, MD 21014
MTC-00020925
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
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,
Chrles Monroe
46 Don Timoteo Ct.
Sonoma, CA 95476
MTC-00020926
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
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,
Chris Robinson
256 Potomac Lane
Winthrop Harbor, IL 60096
MTC-00020927
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
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
[[Page 26961]]
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,
Willard Stringham
1063 Hamilton Cir.
TN 37312
MTC-00020928
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
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,
Joe Pasky
4437 Forest Dr.
Waterford, MI 48328
MTC-00020929
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20am
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,
Joyce Jude
103 North Lane
Bluefield, VA 24605
MTC-00020930
From: E. Dekkers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Miss,
I'm a 31-year old Dutch electronic engineer. I spend a lot of
time in computers generally and have build up much knowledge of
computers. In time I became to love computers and hate Microsoft. In
my opinion Microsoft slowed down the computer evolution and made
only money of it. I can write many books about Microsoft but I guess
you haven't got the time to read that now so here is a short
impression how Microsoft became a monopolised. During my education
in the 80ies I had a personal computer called an Amiga. That
computer could do anything that a PC can do now these days. I chose
in 1986 for an electronic engineering education because I thought
Microsoft couldn't keep the consumers dumb and I hoped that
competitors would come with better marketing plans so that the
consumers could see what computers really could do. Al those years
Microsoft earned a lot of money by mastering the marketing
techniques and keeping the consumer dumb. Microsoft monopolised the
computer industry by copying an operating system and pulling all the
commonly used software like word-processors and spreadsheets towards
them. All the products of Microsoft have many flows (called bugs) in
it a specially the operating systems like Windows and on top of all
every software of competitors didn't work properly on Windows
systems. If this is don on porpoise is not easy to make hard when
Microsoft never made the source-code Windows public. In the early
days you had the Wordperfect word-processors, Netscape and Opera
browser, Lotus123 spreadsheet programs.
Where are those software companies now? In those days I already
find that software companies a specially Operating system builders
should stay in the terrain the government approved them to operate
in.
Like I sad I can write books about Microsoft. With other
engineers I can explain this easy but for non-technicians you can
only give a simplified example like this: Imagine when a big car
company (Microsoft) has all the oil refineries and they could make a
kind of petrol (operating system), that nobody know what precisely
was in it (millions of line of source code never made public).
Then their cars (application software) would work fine but every
other car manufacturers could not make cars that drive properly on
their fuel. Then they (Microsoft) could sell expensive tools (design
software) and education (Microsoft certificates) to competitor car
manufactures. They could easily change the fuel (faster and more
stable then before as they say) every year so you will have to buy a
new car every year.
For computer users witch the majority of them are non-technical
a demonstration on a 15 year old computer will demonstrate quickly
how Microsoft didn't gave the users better products or technology
but how they only found a perfect way in selling upgrades and
"new" products.
I hope that my letter is understood and contributes in setting
the software industry on the right track by the government so that
the consumers and the industry can profit healthy competition.
Best regards,
Ing. E. Dekkers
Sweelincklaan 250
5012BA Tilburg
The Netherlands
P.S. Sorry if my letter isn't good readable but my English is a
bit rusty.
MTC-00020931
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My first computer came with a copy Digital Research's Operating
System and I can testify to the fact that misleading error messages
were reported when trying to install Windows 3.1. I found DR-DOS to
be a much better operating system than MS-DOS (for instance, unlike
DR-DOS, MS-DOS's "undelete" utility would only work on
one file per directory). I was much chagrined when I could not get a
copy of DR-DOS for my second computer, since I could not find any
manufacturer that didn't force a copy of Microsoft's OS on me.
Being a new developer at the time, I tired of the constant
rebooting the Microsoft Windows 3.1 required whenever a problem in
one of my programs surfaced. On the advice of a workmate, I switched
to IBM's OS/2. I couldn't find a system with the OS pre-installed,
so I spent 16 hours doing it myself. I was amazed at the stability,
intuitiveness and integration of OS/2 compared to Windows.
Eventually, I gave up on OS/2 due to the lack of community support.
Now I use Linux. I've learned to build by own computers in order
to avoid the MS Tax. I have seen so many excellent technologies
literally pushed out of the market by strong-arm tactics, that I
refuse rely on MS products. I do have one system that dual boots to
Win95 so that my children can play games, but even that was a hassle
since MS products will not run unless installed on the first
partition. I cannot arrange MY partitions as I like. In other words,
even if you build your own computers, anything that touches MS will
be corrupted by MS. I still use Netscape, because it is the only
browser I have that support multiple platforms. I can used it on OS/
2, and now use it on Windows, Linux, and my Sun Workstation at work.
MS torpedoed Netscape-killing a strong innovative competitor
by dumping an inferior product on the market and then using its OS
monopoly to force IE down OEM's throats. MS will continue to torpedo
anyone that threatens their monopoly in even the slightest way. The
courts must curtail this behavior if any technology company other
than MS is ever to survive. I see only one way for this to occur.
The courts must:
1) Require Microsoft to publish and make freely available all
technical specifications
[[Page 26962]]
for default saved data formats. People should not feel coerced into
using MS products because only MS products can deal with the
documents that the PEOPLE have created. People should be able to
share the information they create for themselves with others who
choose to purchase from competitors of MS. Most everyone saves their
data in the default data format chosen by the program. MS could keep
their '.doc' format closed, but make '.rtf'
(which is just as capable, but open to all) the default.
2)Remove any restrictive liscensing or discriminatory pricing,
including volume pricing, that would coerce an OEM manufacturer to
only ship MS products.
This includes the 'dual boot' restrictions as well
as any other hidden clauses in their 'trade secret'
contracts. Once Microsoft has sold the product, it should be out of
their hands, just like a physical good. And allowing them to force
an OEM out of the market by raising the price of a monopoly product
by $100 (when the profit from a system is $50) is a total
miscarriage of justice.
In short, make MS products play nice with the rest of the world
and then let the market decide.
It is impossible to put the market back to where it was when I
fell in love with DR-DOS, and OS/2 will probably never come back.
But Microsoft cannot be allowed to continue forcing productive,
innovative companies out of the market. I still -
"The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground
is hard." Michael Collins (1987)
MTC-00020932
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:21am
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,
FRANK W. LAWRENCE. SR
1062 E. HEATHER ST.
GLENDORA, CA 91740-5804
MTC-00020933
From: Trudy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
Subject: MICROSOFT WITCHHUNT
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
MTC-00020934
From: Doug Rawady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I thinks it's unfortunate that logic and common sense are taking
a backseat to dollars and cents in this ongoing travesty. Anyone
who's willing to be truly OBJECTIVE can clearly determine from the
findings of fact, that Microsoft is guilty as charged. Additionally,
if one is willing to go outside of this particular case and look at
Microsoft's historical business practice of stifling and/or
squashing the competition, there can be no doubt as to their
predatory nature.
When any one company dominates a market the way Microsoft
dominates the PC industry, they're in a prefect position to control
that market and move it in whatever direction they should choose.
Far from encouraging competition and innovation, Microsoft is
ideally situated to nip it in the bud before it can ever pose a
threat to their own proprietary (and quite often inferior) software
solutions. NO COMPANY should be able to exercise that kind of power!
Lest you think I'm completely anti-Microsoft, allow me to say
that I AM a user and a fan of Microsoft Office. However, I use
Office on the Macintosh platform, NOT Windows! Microsoft to it's
credit, has established a separate business unit for the exclusive
purpose of developing software for the Mac. Although the cynic in me
sometimes wonders if that isn't more to appease the Department of
Justice than it is to support a competing platform. I don't doubt
that Microsoft's support of the Mac is somewhat out of necessity.
Were they to withdraw any further development of Mac-compatible
software, they would only further paint themselves into the monopoly
corner. I implore the powers-that-be to not cave in to special
interests on this one. Don't let Microsoft's enormous wealth and
influence dictate your decision. This is about justice and free
choice. The consumer should have access to the best and most cost
effective software solutions available at any given time. That's
only going to happen if you step up to the plate and rein in the
800lb Gorilla that is Microsoft!
Doug Rawady
40 Gould Ave
Fairfield, CT 06430
MTC-00020935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22am
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,
Randy Lamm
1130 Village Drive
DeRidder, LA 70634
MTC-00020936
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22am
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,
JANET CATT
985 ROCKY TERRACE
CAMANO ISLAND, WA 98282
MTC-00020937
From: Dirk van Assendelft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement does not go far
enough. Microsoft should be required to standardize and publish ALL
APIs as well as the file format of its Office applications. This is
the only way that other companies will have a fair chance of
competing with Microsoft.
Dirk van Assendelft
Assistant Director of Technology Services
Washington and Lee School of Law
540-463-8582
[email protected]
MTC-00020938
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that Microsoft's monopoly is on-going and is
killing any attempt to compete with Microsoft. With the release of
Windows XP, Microsoft furthers it monopolistic actions. The
settlement also furthers the monopoly-giving schools
[[Page 26963]]
"terms" under which they are "given"
computers and software-further limiting students" access
to competitive and "better technology and software."
MTC-00020939
From: Peterson, Guy
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:25am
Subject: Microsoft comment.
Microsoft should be punished to the fullest extent for
violations of the anti-trust law and its other illegal business
practices which have severely damaged other companies to compete and
bring true innovation to the industry.
Sincerely,
Guy Peterson
Visual Communications Manager
Manitowoc Cranes, Inc.
2401 South 30th Street
Manitowoc, WI 54221
T 920-683-6316
F 920-683-6277
MTC-00020941
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22am
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,
Lillie Hinnant
106 Poole Ct.
Knightdale, NC 27545
MTC-00020942
From: Jan van Wijk
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do NOT agree.
The settlement will lett Microsoft continue to exploit their
monopolism ...
Jan van Wijk; DFSee and LPTool author (freeware): http://
www.fsys.demon.nl
MTC-00020943
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22am
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,
Jay & Traci Yoder
149 Root Rd.
Westfield, MA 01085
MTC-00020944
From: Troy Gutman
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ is doing the public a disservice if this settlement is
agreed to with M$.
MTC-00020945
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
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,
Charles Bahn
527 Wind Spirit Cir.
Prescott, AZ 86303
MTC-00020946
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
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,
Vince Bozin
22503 Ladeene Ave
Torrance, CA 90505
MTC-00020947
From: Don Byrd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft cause is far too
weak. One problem with it-and I believe there are several
others-is that Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses
and intentional incompatibilities to discourage users from running
Windows applications on Windows-compatible competing operating
systems. To my knowledge, the PFJ does not adequately address this.
-Don Byrd
MTC-00020948
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23am
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,
Gerald Witt
6347 Pheasant Valley
Road Dayton, OH 45424-7100
MTC-00020949
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26964]]
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,
Adrian Fitzpatrick
103 Honey Tree Dr.
Athens, GA 30605
MTC-00020950
From: Ferraro, James A
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft
Now AOL is going after Microsoft because they haven't done
anything to keep Netscape competitive. So while the DOJ goes after a
company that has legitimate product, ENRON is left to steal, cheat,
lie and swindle the public. Microsoft has done nothing but make
money for their stock holders and make the USA the top software
nation in the world.
Meanwhile ENRON loses its stock holders and employees money and
expects the tax payer to pay the bill for their Foreign deals.
James A. Ferraro
Lockheed Martin Missile & Space
Air Force Reentry Systems Programs
230 Mall Boulevard,
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: 610-354-2932
Fax: 610-354-5225
MTC-00020951
From: Bruce Sergeant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the tentative settlement of the United States
vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
Bruce Sergeant
Lecompton, KS
MTC-00020952
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
As a conservative republican, I'm going to go against my
uninformed colleagues, and strongly support any action taken to
punish Microsoft. I am also a software engineer. The fact is, that
Microsoft has single-handedly and significantly lowered standards
for software in the industry. They consistantly engage in illegal
business practices that stifle innovation. Microsoft doesn't
innovate-they wait for someone else to bring innovative
products to market, copy that product (with a low-quality
imitation), and then leverage that product with an operating system
that was brought to the market in the same way. Anyone who brings an
innovative idea into the software market is therefore driven out of
business. Bill Clinton and Microsoft prove that competence is
unimportant, marketing is much more reliable.
Sincerely,
Bert Elsey
2804 Canyon Valley Trail
Plano, TX 75075
MTC-00020953
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24am
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,
Rowen Wipf
337 Hickory Lane
Shakopee, MN 55379
MTC-00020954
From: Langhorne, Rick
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Case Dear Justice Department,
I manage a computer network of about 1500 Windows PCs and 50
Windows servers for the CIty of Greensboro, North Carolina. Your
suit against Microsoft has created a lot of uncertainty about the
future of Microsoft products, and is impacting our ability to plan
for the future of our computer uses in a negative way!
I have been involved with computer software and hardware for a
good while. I am pleased with the new features that Microsoft has
incorporated into their software. It saves a lot of time and a lot
of money! I am no expert on legal matters but I can say for a fact
that Microsoft software is much less expensive than their
competition's software. If you do not believe me, just price Oracle
database software, Sun Solaris, or IBM AIX.
High tech is the future for today and for tomorrow as well.
Please try to bring some common sense to the table when deciding on
this issue.
These comments are my personal opinion and not the official
position of the City of Greensboro, North Carolina.
Rick Langhorne
Desktop Services Manager
City of Greensboro
MTC-00020955
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24am
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,
cindy kingsley
3225 E.Baseline Rd.#3051
Gilbert, AZ 85234-2697
MTC-00020956
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24am
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,
cindy kingsley
3225 E.Baseline Rd.#3051
Gilbert, AZ 85234-2697
MTC-00020957
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
[[Page 26965]]
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,
Diane Hussey
16750 Crystal Glade
San Antonio, TX 78247
MTC-00020958
From: Steve Johnson-Evers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do say you guys in the DoJ caved in on this one. Your proposed
settlement is not in the public's best interest and it makes this
administration look like it favors big business.
MTC-00020959
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26am
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,
Louis Tipton
778cr123
Edna, TX 77957
MTC-00020960
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let these guys settle things in the market place. AOL is just a
crybaby. Remember, Time Warner is the company that brought us all
those CDs advocating killing cops. From a moralistic point of
view- they are the worst kind of trash. They do not need
protection, they need some of their own medicine.
Cheers, David
MTC-00020961
From: Bruce Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the tentative settlement of the United States
vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
Bruce Sergeant
Lecompton, KS
MTC-00020962
From: Stephen Aubuchon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:29am
Subject: Get your fat asses out of the free market !!!
To whom it may concern, The total and unfounded harassment by
this increasingly socialist government has got to end. This latest
travesty against Microsoft is pure bullshit and will continue to
weaken one of the best job creating businesses the country still
has. The companies that have pushed to keep harassing Microsoft
should get out of the free market system and go to China if they
need the government to carry them. If the government is really
interested in looking into monopolies, how about starting with the
public school system, which is REALLY a monopoly !!!!!
Stephen A Aubuchon
67 Town Farm Road
Westminster,Mass. 01473
MTC-00020963
From: Hayden Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32am
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,
Hayden Schultz
MTC-00020964
From: Jon Rauschenberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to voice my opinion that the proposed settlement is
fair and should be accepted by all parties. The penalties fit the
crime and are in the best interest of consumers.
Jon Rauschenberger
Director of Technology
Clarity Consulting, Inc.
MTC-00020965
From: Thomas J Petracca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
"...exclusionary agreements..."
This is the fundamental arguement that the Justice Department
claims as the basis for its case against Microsoft. It is pure
hypocrisy that a "monopoly" can exist with only,
"exclusionary agreements." The D of J is absolutely
correct, Microsoft and computer companies "agreed" that
in order for those same computer companies to sell Microsoft
software they would have to agree to limit their service to other
computer companies. They, the computer companies,
"agreed." Let's see, every retail industry I know of,
food, housewares, home improvement, etc., practices the same exact
policy. Why is it, that my corner grocer only carries a couple of
specific brands of cereals.? When I ask, they state they only
"want" to sell the big names because if they bring in
competitition they could be "dropped" by the big guys,
as a distributor. Welcome to America. If you want to have a better
operating system, write one, and get the $$$ behind it to get some
computer companies to buy it. With PC's being commodity items these
days there is no longer any barrier. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can
start a PC company and sell PC's...and get into an agreement with
another operating system software company. Sure, the odds are
against it. Microsoft has done such a good job convincing the public
that their software, which is really not that good, is the best.
They won at the American game...and now America-more
accurately the D of J wants to punish it. The cry babies at Netscape
and the other hacks are smart. Why bother trying to be innovative,
not just in developing a better mousetrap (operating system), but in
packaging and marketing it to the public. It's not necessary. The
guilt ridden people in our D or J will lead the way in bringing the
rebel Microsoft (the most successful company of all time) and it's
lunatic chairman (the greatest philanthropist of all time...measured
by $$$ given away) to their knees. Social control of our software
industry will clearly bring about better systems for the little
people. Hey, Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Thank you.
Thomas J. Petracca, P.E.
Smithtown, New York
[[Page 26966]]
MTC-00020966
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:30am
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,
Janet D'Alessio
23 West Road
Short Hills, NJ 07078
MTC-00020967
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33am
Subject: AOL vs Microsoft
This is to request that you decide favorably for Microsoft in
this above referenced case. AOL's case has been filed at a very
suspicious time. Also from my determination of the facts of this
case, this issue has been previously covered in prior, or ongoing,
legal action. Hopeful this case can be quickly dismissed and or
settled so that these firms may get back to their business at had,
and provide the services that, we as customers, may benefit from.
George O. Ellis
415 Lakeside Est Dr.
Houston, TX, 77042
MTC-00020968
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:30am
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,
John Boranko
PO Box 704
109 West High St.
Sharpsburg, MD 21782-0704
MTC-00020969
From: Susan Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33am
Subject: antitrust case
This witch hunt has gone on long enough. Microsoft's products
have done nothing to harm the public. In fact, they have added
greatly to the economy and profitability of the country. As far as
netscape is concerned, anyone can use it if they want. It is just
not as good as Microsoft. In the economy of the times, the taxpayers
money could be better spent on something else, namely the terrorist
attacks on America.
Susan Bryant
MTC-00020970
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31am
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,
Sharon Whitley
8354 Sorrel Drive
Houston, TX 77064-8211
MTC-00020971
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31am
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,
Paul Mathis
15415 Hollywood Drive
Orland Park, IL 60462-4016
MTC-00020972
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31am
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,
Jeff Stedding
1040 Cool Spring Dr
Westminster, MD 21157-7035
MTC-00020973
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:30am
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,
Paul Baker
2447 Ping Dr
Henderson, NV 89014
MTC-00020974
From: Stephanie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32am
Subject: US Government is Allowing Microsoft to be Computer Mafia!!!
To: Renata B. Hesse
[[Page 26967]]
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. 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 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 couldrun 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
Regards,
Marcia S. Howes
MTC-00020975
From: P David Schaub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:35am
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 computer professional in the with 15 years experience in
the field, I would like to take the time to comment briefly under
the Tunney Act on the proposed Microsoft settlement. My computing
work today is on a competing product to Microsoft-the Linux
operating system. I am concerned that the Proposed Final Judgment as
laid out does little to ensure there won't be a strong counterattack
against my operating system of choice. Should the Proposed Final
Judgment be accepted it would be of little surprise that a free and
open operating system would suffer a significant set back because of
litagation from a (currently) quite Microsoft. In many places
Microsoft has identified this OS as it's number one competitor.
Although Linux has strength in numbers it has major weakness in
fincance. I anticipate its downfall should the Proposed Final
Judgment not be strengthened. The specific area that I would like to
see addressed is the use of restrictive licenses to keep Windows
applications from running on competitive operating systems. (see
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.atl)
Thanks you so much for your time,
P. David Schaub
4348 Kenwood Drive
Grapevine, TX 76051
MTC-00020976
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32am
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,
Ethel Gordon
16 Sneaking Creek Lane
Hayesville, NC 28904
MTC-00020977
From: Jay Fougere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can't believe the proposals that I had heard you were settling
for were even being considered. There is no consideration for
punishment of illegal activity. Since when does a parolee have any
say in who the parole officer is? ... in regards to Microsoft being
allowed to have a say in the picking of the panel that will be
monitoring their future activity. There are more holes in the
agreement (concerning future practices by Microsoft) than there are
stars in the sky; an Microsoft knows this, which is why they are so
eager to settle. In conclusion, the solutions suggested by the DOJ
may as well have been written by Microsoft (assuming that they
weren't...) for all of the good they will do in restoring
competition to the marketplace. When I see this type of failure in
the system that I am supposed to trust to protect me, as a U.S.
citzen, consumer, and taxpayer, it makes me wonder where my tax
dollars really are going, because they obviously aren't being spent
to protect me from predatory corporations.
Jay Fougere
[[Page 26968]]
MTC-00020978
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34am
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,
Joe Chine
217E Goettler Street
Scott AFB , IL 62225
MTC-00020979
From: Doug Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:35am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
I am outraged at Microsoft's offer to buy its way out of its
antitrust conviction by giving away Microsoft software. Quite apart
from the fact that Microsoft is overstating the value of its
products, this action would have the effect of extending Microsoft's
monopoly control even farther. My wife graduated college not long
ago. She was REQUIRED to take a course in Microsoft Office products
as part of her degree program. To me, this proves that Microsoft
already has too much influence in the academic world. For Microsoft
to give its software to schools would extend this bias even further.
There are alternatives to using Microsoft products. Any settlement
in the Microsoft antitrust case should have the effect of
encouraging competitition in the marketplace, not eliminating it.
Sincerely,
Douglas Black
431 Electric Avenue
Westerville, OH 43081
614 890 5743
MTC-00020980
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34am
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,
Charles Osgood
1010 Dellwood Ln.
Mtn. Home, AR 72653
MTC-00020981
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32am
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,
Kathryn Walker
365 Shadow Tree Drive
Oceanside, CA 92028-3187
MTC-00020982
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34am
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,
John & Jean Anne Morrow
1998 Prescott Lakes Pkwy.
Prescott, AZ 86301
MTC-00020983
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34am
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 Stump
1514 SW 53rd Ter
Cape Coral, FL 33914
MTC-00020984
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33am
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,
Winnette Wimberly
14922 Tallow Forest Court
Houston, TX 77062-2921
MTC-00020985
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33am
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
[[Page 26969]]
"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,
Adelbert E Eldridge
RR 1 Box 71
Towanda, PA 18848-9786
MTC-00020986
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:35am
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,
Samuel Dingus
7704 Tollbridge Ct
Florence, KY 41042
MTC-00020987
From: Sami Besalel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally
Dear Your Honor:
I am a US citizen who has been a consumer of Microsoft products
since I first began to use computers in 1983. I also work for Oracle
Corporation, which is a competitor of Microsoft's. However, my
judgments and opinions are my own, and this electronic mail message
is not motivated by my employer, but by my technical and social
conscience. I strongly feel that the proposed final judgment against
Microsoft is thoroughly inadequate and will not effectively achieve
the stated goals (to terminate the legally recognized monopoly, to
prevent future anticompetitive behavior and to deny the company the
use of benefits attained through its illegal activity). I was very
concerned when I heard Microsoft's proposal to provide schools with
computers and equipment, as this not only provides Microsoft with
goodwill from the public (unmeasurable legally) but also allows that
company access to a market traditionally held strongly by Apple
Computer, a Microsoft competitor. Apple is a company of substantial
technical innovation ? in fact, most of Microsoft's successes were
first invented or widely distributed as part of Apple's operating
systems or software. Further reducing Apple's market share by
allowing Microsoft to supply (and thereby influence directly and
indirectly) schools would be a painful blow and counterproductive to
two of the three goals of the settlement. Microsoft's insistence
that the operating system cannot be separated from the browser is
pure poppycock. As a software developer with knowledge of Windows in
each of its versions from 3.1 onward, this is a manufactured
reliance. Current Windows operating systems do not benefit greatly
from this new reliance ? in fact, it hinders speed and thrusts a
Web-paradigm graphic user interface on you that is difficult to
suppress and counterintuitive. The concept of settling for icons
being placed on the desktop and concern for whether or not Microsoft
will allow OEMs and resellers to have their product icons on the
desktop misses the essential point. This concern faces on
appearances, not function or usability. Truly it only affects those
computer users who might not know how to put icons on or off the
desktop. I would like my PC to not have the Internet Explorer
browser on it at all ? but MS has made that impossible, citing it as
a requirement when it had not been before.
Microsoft takes the concept of security as a minor concern. Yet
their operating systems and Web browsers are incredibly insecure,
opening up users to likely harm from external sources. I would like
to rid myself of such concerns by removing their buggy browser from
my area of concern. I want it off! I don't just want to remove the
icon. This has not in the least been addressed. Like it or not,
Microsoft's anticompetitive aggressive entry into the browser market
crushed the success of thousands of small but efficient Web browsers
and reduced the playing field to two six-hundred-pound gorillas. We
consumers have suffered. I could write on and on for hours, but
please understand that my concern is that the agreement does not
punish Microsoft or prohibit them from enjoying the market share or
software monopoly they have attained by leveraging their
anticompetitive practices, nor are the few remedies proposed easily
enforced. Please remember Mr. Gates" obvious scorn for the
legal process, and his condescending attitude throughout the process
and scurrilous disregard for applying the stated laws to himself and
his company. Consider this as you address the binding final
judgment, which I urge you to revise more strongly. This is not
about the economy. This is about long-standing wrong-doing,
unpunished, unrepentant shark-like behavior, and the desire to twist
and spin any aspect into a market driver to improve this company's
success.
Respectfully,
Samuel H. Besalel
Private citizen, software consumer, software developer
MTC-00020988
From: John Cambra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is bad idea. It does
no discernable harm to Microsoft. I thought the settlement was meant
to punish Microsoft for anti-trade practices and this settlement
only helps Microsoft reach deeper into the education market. I
disapprove completely.
John Cambra
9444 Harbour Point Dr. Apt.60
Elk Grove, CA 95758
916 399-7324
MTC-00020989
From: Robert Deed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree with it
MTC-00020990
From: Stephen Keen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
Subject: give them a chance Hello DOJ people,
In this day of Terrorism and war you guys need to give Microsoft
a chance. Let them get out of this. Netscape and the people who
started this are the bad guys
Stephen Keen
MTC-00020991
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:35am
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 Griffin
202 W. Berry St., Suite 820
Ft. Wayne, IN 46802
MTC-00020992
From: Roger Blake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
To whom it may concern,
Please end the prosecution of Microsoft. It has gone far enough.
I am not a Microsoft stock holder, however, I do believe that their
ultimate costs, and thus their eventual cost of goods to me, will
continue to go up if the government continues to litigate. Instead,
please pursue further treasonous actions by the Clintion
administration, especially the quid-pro-quo with Loral, Inc. and the
transfer
[[Page 26970]]
of info to the Chinese. This is far more damaging to the security of
the United States than Microsoft ever will be.
Thank you
Roger Blake
680 Westbranch Drive
Waukee, IA 50263
MTC-00020993
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
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,
Bill Morrow
9330 Meaux Drive
Houston, TX 77031
MTC-00020994
From: Joy Kadison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
One citizen's opinion: Please put an end to the harrassment of
perhaps the most innovative, productive company in the world. AOL
and Microsoft need to cooperate in making the computing experience
easier, not wasting time and resources in the courtroom. Joy
Kadison, Tallahassee, FL
MTC-00020995
From: Philip Royalty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do what you can to end this court battle that Microsoft
has been involved in. American needs to get back to business, not
litigation.
Philip Royalty
Sugar Land, Texas
MTC-00020996
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39am
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,
Steven De Ridder
6255 Skylight Drive
Bartlett, TN 38135
MTC-00020997
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36am
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,
Betty Parker
1112 W. Beacon Rd. Lot 118
Lakeland, FL 33803-2713
MTC-00020998
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39am
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,
Nancy VanAntwerp
2121 Washington St.
Columbus, IN 47201-4115
MTC-00020999
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39am
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,
Bobby McMillan
3006 Coventry Ln
Waxahachie, TX 75165-8880
MTC-00021000
From: Dan deForest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do not allow the settlement to go through as is. It certainly is
no punishment to make them do business the way they should have been
doing it all along. Put some real teeth in it to discourage other
companies from doing the same.
MTC-00021001
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:37am
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,
Robert Robert
3360 SW County Road 769
Arcadia, FL 34269
MTC-00021002
From: Travis Hendon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42am
Subject: As a concerned US citizen and resident of New York, I
support the Microsoft
[[Page 26971]]
As a concerned US citizen and resident of New York, I support
the Microsoft settlement that would provide $1 billion in software
to our nation's schools and finally put this mess behind us. This
entire case was clearly contrived by Microsoft's corporate entities
who have used the US government and my tax dollars as a tool to
improve their competitive position in a market that, I would argue,
was moving in the right direction before the government intervened.
It is time to finally end this madness and in addition to that, get
the 9 state attorneys general who are holding out on board with the
settlement-at least the proposed $1 billion donation will add
value to our public schools. This is just my view as a concerned
citizen in response to the invitation for public comment. Thank you.
Travis Hendon
226 East 13th Street #28
New York, NY 10003
MTC-00021003
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:37am
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,
Mary Jo Glenn
280 Stone Rd
Constable, NY 12926-1804
MTC-00021004
From: Stephen Keen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello DOJ
Lets settle this already. Get this out of the courts so that we
can rebuild our economy. Let real competition rule. Microsoft in not
the bad guy here. Just because Netscape cannot compete don't
penalize Microsoft. Let's settle this now.
Stephen Keen
MTC-00021005
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
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,
Daniel Dunaway
12923 Mayerling Drive
Creve Coeur, MO 63146
MTC-00021006
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, we 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
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 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,
Donald A. Conner, Austin, Texas, Software Engineer, Catalyst
Solutions
MTC-00021007
From: Leo Kaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I have followed the Microsoft case very carefully, and I am very
disappointed with the way the case has progressed. I have yet to see
any evidence of how consumers were harmed by Microsoft including a
Browser with their OS. In fact IBM's Warp OS 2 came out before
Windows 95 and it also included a browser. Why wasn't IBM included
in the lawsuit? This legal battle was never about the
[[Page 26972]]
protecting the consumer, it was about protecting competitors of
Microsoft. If there are so many consumers that have been harmed by
Microsoft why don't they buy a Mac or use Linux. Even though you
have painted Microsoft as a Monopoly they are not the only operating
system in town. Let the market decide!!! Stay away from my OS!!!
Leo Kaas
MTC-00021008
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
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 Thrasher
4613 70th Place
Urbandale, IA 50322-8012
MTC-00021009
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39am
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,
E. Lamar Emmons
6621 So. McKemy St.
Tempe, AZ 85283-3548
MTC-00021010
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39am
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,
ROBERT HAMILTON
1237 POORMAN ROAD
BELLVILLE, OH 44813-9019
MTC-00021011
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
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,
Thomas Eberhart
105 Carney Lake Rd
Winterville, GA 30683-1553
MTC-00021012
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42am
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,
Sharon Hilton
11120 So 32nd St
Vicksburg, MI 49097
MTC-00021013
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:40am
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,
Shawn Lenihan
3318 Doherty Place
Katy, TX 77449-6646
MTC-00021014
From: Arthur Whitson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US DOJ,
Now is the time to resolve the Microsoft suit.
The judgment is fair.
The 9 rebel states are out of line!
Art Whitson
University Park, Florida
MTC-00021015
From: Kent Klaser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:43am
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
[[Page 26973]]
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,
Kent Klaser
MTC-00021016
From: Howard Uman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the settlement is absurd. Microsoft has done damage
to companies I've worked for and companies I will work for in the
future. It's insane to allow a company like Microsoft to leverage
Windows and bust up areas of viable business by claiming
"extension to the operating system". There are many
examples of this:
1. Internet Explorer
2. Media Player
3. CD recording
And the list will continue to go on and on. An operating system,
by definition, allows computer software to interact with hardware
through some form of user interface. That's it. These other
features, while they may be handy, are certainly extraneous to an
operating system and are definitely outside of the definition of
what Microsoft is selling. This allows them to force other players
out of markets and charging more for the "value-add".
Thanks for taking the time to consider my opinion in regards to the
settlement. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Howard Uman �7E
MTC-00021017
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42am
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,
Janis Fedor
714 Harmony Road
Slippery Rock, PA 16057-1810
MTC-00021018
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41am
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,
Sonya Lenihan
3318 Doherty Place
Katy, TX 77449-6646
MTC-00021019
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41am
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,
annie lane
1055 rd. 602
carthage, MS 39051-8815
MTC-00021020
From: scott mcmullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I would like to write a note to express my opposition to the
proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe the settlement does a poor
job of adequately remediating Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.
One example of this is Microsoft's practice of charging site
licenses (to large businesses) for each computer which could run the
Windows operating system, regardless of whether or not the Windows
operating system in fact is installed on all of them. Further, I
think the definition of "Windows Operating System
Product" spelled out in the Proposed Final Judgement is too
limited; and does not include 'Windows XP Tablet PC' or
'Windows CE'. Too, I think the definition of
"Microsoft Middleware Product" should be broadened to
include Microsoft .NET, C#, Microsoft Outlook, and Microsoft
Office. Microsoft should be required to document file formats; file
formats are an important barrier to entry for developers of
applications. For these reasons and others, I believe the Proposed
Final Judgement is bad for consumers and businesses and should be
rejected.
Respectfully,
Scott McMullen
Dripping Springs, Texas
MTC-00021021
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, As a tax payer I am appalled at the
litigious fashion in which the Department of Justice is limiting the
ability of a company to compete in an open competitive market place.
I for one do not feel harmed by Microsoft and its business
practices, and feel that their business practice has only succeeded
in bringing to the consumer exceptional products at competitive
prices. It is a joke that any company that can and has not delivered
been able to compete evenly simply files suit again and again.
Sincerely Jason J. Canin
MTC-00021022
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:43am
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,
Margaret Klass
1260 Batson Place
Nixa, MO 65714
MTC-00021023
From: Harmon, Dale
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
[[Page 26974]]
With respect to any proposed settlement, it is my observation
(and the court's) that with respect to PC operating systems,
Microsoft has an effective monopoly. As such the most recently
released Microsoft operating systems only compete with previously
released versions. Microsoft's pricing policy makes this apparent in
that there is no discount or reduction in the price of older
operating systems. My recommendation is that Microsoft be required
to sell previous versions of the Windows operating system at a fixed
discount relative to the price Microsoft sets for the most recently
released Windows operating system. (I suggest 20%, 40%, & 60%.)
Further, if Microsoft chooses to stop selling and/or supporting an
older operating system, then that operating software should be
considered to be in the "public domain." In summary,
first Microsoft should be required to sell older operating system
software at a reduced price relative to the most recently released
operating system software. Second, if Microsoft no longer wants to
sell and/or support older software, then other individuals and/or
companies should be able to freely copy and use that software.
Respectfully yours,
Dale L. Harmon
301 Brownsfell Drive
Columbus, OH 43235-7004
MTC-00021024
From: D. Bevard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please get this misguided effort at courtroom competition over.
We have had computers in our home since our first TRS-80
(Radio Shack sale) since 1977. There are plenty of options for the
consumer if he so chooses. Personally, I do not want to have to go
back to having to buy a different software for each computer because
they all become proprietary.
Once upon a time we had a Magnavox system. It had a proprietary
OS (not windows-which was available) and proprietary applications
(word processing, spreadsheet solution, database manager) Then one
day we got a card in the mail saying..too bad folks. We have decided
not to support this system anymore. We have been running Microsoft
software by choice since then. We could have purchased other
software, it was our choice as a consumer. It was painful (the
proprietary stuff from Magnavox was not compatible with any other
software. All the information had to be rekeyed..not fun) and
expensive. There were cheaper alternatives, as well as more
expensive ones (IBM). This was our choice. We like millions of other
people voted with our dollars. By the way, we run Internet Explorer,
Netscape, and several other browsers, although Internet Explorer is
our favorite. This witch-hunt is destroying a segment of our economy
and hurting the consumer. You have put millions of people's
livelihoods at risk by this nonsense. End it. Force the settlement
on the States and let the market get back to innovating new stuff
for us consumers. The industry nor the government is responsible for
the consumers understanding of software. If a consumer is not
informed enough to make a good decision, it is the consumers
responsibility to do the research necessary to make the purchase.
Denise Bevard
MTC-00021025
From: ivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. The proposed settlement is undesirable and
fails to curb Microsoft's illegal monopolistic actions. I agree with
the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
Ivan Kohler
U.S. Citizen
MTC-00021026
From: Russ Wasendorf Jr.
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is disgusting that a strategy of corporate business practice
has become suing the strongest competitor in the marketplace for
anti-competition. The government needs to wake up to the fact that
these companies are wasting government spending (my tax dollars) to
cause a less competitive market. Someone needs to tell AOL to go
compete in the marketplace and not the courtroom. STOP WASTING MY
TAX DOLLARS AND TYING UP THE COURTROOMS!!!!!!!!!!
Russell R. Wasendorf, Jr.
MTC-00021027
From: Rick Horowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment on the Microsoft settlement based on my
over 20 years of experience in the computer, networking, and
Internet industries. In my view, the breakup of Microsoft into two
companies is mandated-an OS company and a company allowed to
sell applications and provide Internet services. Microsoft's
domination of the operating system market will likely increase with
the introduction of Windows XP because it will eliminate the
incompatibilities suffered by their previous lineup of operating
systems. Apple's OS-X does not have sufficient market share to
draw application developers onto their platform in sufficient
numbers to compete with Microsoft in many application areas, hence
will likely only garner marginal market share forever, or at least
for a long time to come.
Linux is the only operating system that has sufficient mindshare
in the developer community to obtain the necessary applications in a
broad range of application areas. However, due to the disconnected
nature of Linux development (thousands of loosely coupled developers
worldwide), the user experience is not nearly as good as Windows or
Macintosh. Linux has made significant inroads as a server OS, but
has lagged on the desktop for this reason. My own experience with
these operating systems leads me to believe that it will take at
least 2 more years for Linux to provide a good enough desktop user
experience to allow it to compete with Microsoft on the desktop. At
that point it will still have to make the leap from hacker OS to
mainstream, something that will probably prove impossible without
significant marketing dollars. This funding is unlikely to become
available post-Internet bust. Companies such as Redhat have small
capital bases on which to draw, and there simply is not enough
profit potential in desktop Linux to fund its marketing in a large
way-even should Linux mature to the point to which it provides
a comparable user experience to Microsoft.
In conclusion, Microsoft has been found to use it OS to unfairly
leverage its application and Internet businesses to the detriment of
competing companies and users, a finding which I find matches my own
experience over 20 years. This practice can be stopped by splitting
the company along this line-OS on one side, applications and
Internet along the other side, allowing application vendors to
fairly compete with Microsoft in the application space. This will
lower prices and provide more choice for consumers, as Microsoft's
enormous operating margin will most likely be reduced over time to
more industry-typical levels.
Sincerely,
Richard Horowitz
2090 Pacific Avenue #305
San Francisco, CA 94109
MTC-00021029
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45am
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,
RICHARD PETERSON
1878-4 N RORY LANE
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063
MTC-00021030
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44am
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
[[Page 26975]]
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,
Clark Beddoe
19836-NE 95th St.
Redmond, WA 98052-3748
MTC-00021031
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45am
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,
Candy Collette
410 Monroe St.
Port Clinton, OH 43452
MTC-00021032
From: Pam Missimer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should retain the right to develop software in any way
they choose. Please accept the Microsoft settlement and get this
rediculous matter behind us.
Thank you,
Pam Missimer
MTC-00021033
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44am
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,
Ron Bailey
6950 Mariann Dr
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
MTC-00021034
From: Joe Ogletree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44am
Subject: End the Monopoly
With all due respect,
I strongly oppose the USDOJ's settlement with Microsoft. The
settlement, to my knowledge, does nothing to end this company's
monopoly of PC OS software. To truly create competition in operating
system software, Microsoft should be forced to reveal its APIs and
Windows source code to the extent that programmers can adapt other
operating systems to natively run applications designed for Windows
in their own OS. This would include UNIX, MacOS, Linux, OS2, and all
the other great operating systems that have struggled to survive
despite Microsoft's anticompetitive monopolistic practices. As for
Microsoft's other misdeeds, the company should be forced to release
software that gives the user more control over what components are
part of Windows. For example-I hate Internet Explorer and want
it off my computer. I despise IE and the hidden index.dat files that
it saves in my Temporary Internet Files/content.ie5 and History/
history.ie5 hidden folders, and I want the option of removing this
extraneous software that I consider malicious code. I also believe
that the authorization component for Windows XP should be removed
because ***I should not have to tell a software company if I am
uninstalling software from one computer and installing it on
another***-this is a blatant violation of my privacy and a
betrayal of a "captive audience," namely the computing
public. Please bring this company to justice and end its monopoly,
Joe Ogletree
MTC-00021035
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44am
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,
Jane Fraim
P.O. Box 379
Mount Aukum, CA 95656
MTC-00021036
From: Stan Zietz
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I do not believe that the proposed microsoft settlement goes far
enough to assure true competition will take place for operating
systems in the computer market.
Stan
Stanley Zietz, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair phone-215-895-1126
fax- 215-895-1112, Department of Mathematics,
Physics, and Computer Sciences
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
600 South 43rd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-4495
MTC-00021037
From: Paul Forman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002 Attorney General
John Ashcroft US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support for Microsoft's antitrust
settlement with the federal government. Microsoft's willingness to
settle this ordeal and save the taxpayer money should be commended.
The terms of the settlement are more than fair to Microsoft's
competitors. Microsoft will share information with competitors about
the internal workings of Windows, which will allow the other
companies to more easily place their own software on the operating
system. Also, Microsoft will be bound by a uniform price list when
licensing Windows out to the largest twenty computer makers in the
nation. Clearly, this is more than just a slap on Microsoft's
wrists.
I think this settlement is fair and equitable, and I hope it is
quickly approved. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Forman
Following Seas Web Design, 40 Brackett Road, Gorham, Maine,
04038. 207.839.4240.
MTC-00021038
From: Bill Block
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my support for the settlement in the
Microsoft anti-trust case. I feel that it is in the public interest
reach a
[[Page 26976]]
settlement and continue moving the economy and technical innovation
forward. Having been a long-time software consumer (over ten years
of computer-related work experience on a variety of software
platforms), I think that the settlement is fair and that the process
should be concluded as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
William Block
MTC-00021039
From: Jurik, Jonathan
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a daily user of Microsoft products I need to let you know how
I feel about their services. I work in an office of about 80 in NY
and 250 globally. We all have Microsoft products on our machines and
use the products willingly and eagerly. If the products were not
cutting edge and extremely useful, we would have no use for them.
The fact that the DOJ feels it should "protect" me
from Microsoft is abhorrent. Both my workplace and my family have
decided to deal with Microsoft as consumers. Microsoft is not in the
business of coercion. If they were, they would not last in the
marketplace. The fact that so many people willingly purchase
Microsoft products is evidence that they are a successful business,
not some kind of predator.
The only monopoly involved in this situation is the government
monopoly on the use of force. A proper monopoly on the use of force
which has no place in business. The US Government is in the business
of protecting Americans, not attacking them. Please keep it that
way. The government must not be involved in private business when
both parties deal with each other through trade. Microsoft's success
should not be destroyed, but commended.
Sincerely,
Jon Jurik
American
MTC-00021040
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45am
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,
Rod Chapman
E2529 Birch Lane
Waupaca, WI 54981-8449
MTC-00021041
From: George Huey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:49am
Subject: AOL Files Private Suit against Microsoft
Hi, I just wanted to express my feelings on the new law suit
filed by AOL against Microsoft. I hope that the court throws the
suit out. Microsoft has not hurt AOL/Netscape. I use Microsoft
products because I like the look and feel of their products and I
know that they are out to make my life better. If AOL came out with
a better product, I would use it. I have friends who use AOL and
that is ok by me. When Microsoft hooked up their version of Instance
Messenger to work with AOL's Instance Messenger, my friends and I
were very excited. AOL on the other hand was not and modified their
software to not work with Microsoft. AOL did not think about the
benefit of allowing my friends and I talk, they only wanted to
create their own monopoly and they went out of their way to make
sure that their software would not work with Microsoft. AOL is
trying to force the American people to use AOL where Microsoft is
providing products that working to integrate with AOL and provide a
better user experience. When AOL modified their software so that it
would not work with Microsoft Instance Messenger, this move cost AOL
some of my friends support. AOL instead of looking out for the
consumer's welfare thinks only of themselves.
They had plenty of opportunity to work with Microsoft and they
choose not to. They could work on creating user friendly products
but instead of trying to compete in the market, they try to destroy
Microsoft through the court system. I find it very appalling that
the DOJ has taken sides with companies such as AOL against the
American people. Not only are companies like AOL trying to destroy
Microsoft so that they do not have to create products of value, but
by the consent of DOJ, companies such as AOL and the DOJ are
draining money from Microsoft that could have been directed at
making better products for the world. Over the years, the US Justice
System has gone down hill and it is about time that somebody worked
on a reform. When the whole world is crashing around our ears and
the DOJ continues to work with companies such as AOL, Sun, and
Oracle to destroy a company who's makes better products then they do
is flat out wrong. To allow people that are filled with hate (and
yes, the word is not even close to strong enough), let me repeat,
HATE Microsoft, they are not out for the welfare of the American
people, they have only one addenda in mind and that is to destroy
Microsoft. Please do not let this happen. If nothing else, a class
action law suite needs to be brought against companies like AOL,
Sun, and Oracle for the harm they have done to Microsoft and the
American people by using the courts instead of producing a better
and affordable product in the market place.
Microsoft has NEVER forced me to use their products. It is very
easy to Install any product on my system that I need / want to use.
AOL on the other hand, not only is trying to force people to use
their product in order to talk with their friends, but they are
actively trying to destroy the concept of free enterprise. Please
stop the madness. Please quit hurting the American people and kick
these cases out of the court.
Thanks for your time,
George
MTC-00021042
From: Brian Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I am a member of the IT community and am writing to you today to
make my feelings known on the Microsoft Settlement proposed on
November 06, 2001. As I stated, I am a member of the IT community
and work for Duke University in Durham, NC. Everyone else in my
department uses Windows for their desktop Operating System; I use
Red Hat Linux. I do this because I have a boss who understands the
importance of choice and because I realize there are alternatives
available to me. Unfortunately, I don't believe everyone has the
same luxury.
I don't believe that Microsoft Outlook is the number one email
client or that Internet Explorer is the number one web browser
because they're the best. I believe that they're number one because
of questionable business practices, including tactics to ensure
customers aren't aware of alternatives, leading to the building and
maintaining of a monopoly by Microsoft. Fortunately, the Courts
agreed and have found Microsoft guilty.
Following the verdict finding Microsoft guilty, I have read the
proposed settlement. Although I believe the settlement tries to go
in the right direction, I feel that, in its present wording, it is
unable to effectively prevent Microsoft from continuing its
monopoly. I ask that you reconsider the conditions and the wording
in the settlement, and ensure that Microsoft does not continue its
anti-competitive practices. I know that we are all ready to put this
behind us, however, I strongly believe that there are better
solutions out there than Microsoft, and by leaving the settlement
conditions as they stand now, you are ensuring that people will
continue to be denied the knowledge of these choices. Thank you for
your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
M. Brian Johnson
8916 Old Cedar Tr
Rougemont, NC 27572
IT Analyst, Duke University
MTC-00021043
From: Karen R. Bostic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maize
I support the settlement as proposed with Microsoft. Please do
not fall prey to the tactics of AOL/Netscape to possibly derail the
settlement at this critical juncture-this
[[Page 26977]]
case needs to be settled so that everyone can focus on the needs of
our country in this very unusual time.
Karen R. Bostic
MTC-00021044
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
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,
Jeff Lockwood
P. O. Box 54
Katy, TX 77492
MTC-00021045
From: Liz McCollum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This e mail is to express my opinion that the department of
justice should settle this matter in favor of Microsoft. All this
litigation is a field day for the media and undermines a strong
corporation that we need to stay strong. As a corporation, I fully
understand the precariousness of doing business day to day. Another
collapse, like Enron isn't needed. Why try and collapse a company
that has done so much for every business in the United States. The
year 2002 is not the time to pursue this type of litigation.
Liz McCollum
S&S Services Group, Inc.
6222 Tower Lane Suite A-6
Sarasota FL 34240
941-377-4600 Phone 941-377-4610 Fax
MTC-00021046
From: E L Tonkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I write to air my feelings on the subject of the Microsoft
Settlement. Unfortunately, I am not a US citizen and therefore it is
very probable that my opinions are entirely irrelevant; however, I
am an IT consultant and currently completing a University
postgraduate degree in human- computer-communication. I
am very aware that the actions of Microsoft are likely to determine
the nature of the technology with which I work daily, due to their
almost total domination of the industry. This, therefore, is a
global issue, and I feel that I have a right to speak out. I am not
entirely satisfied with the settlement terms that I have so far
seen. In my opinion, the most important points to keep in mind are:
1 * INDEPENDENTLY documented standards for communication
protocols should be required.
2 * Documentation should not be witheld for any reason
whatsoever, be it a question of security or any other subject.
3 * Proprietary extensions should stay optional. ActiveX is not
indispensable-it is therefore not a "reasonable
technical requirement", as Microsoft would claim, but a
"luxury". Adaption of common protocols is to some extent
reasonable, but it should be understood-and I'm sure it
is-that Microsoft seldom act with the good of the customer in
mind. The same thing can be achieved with non- proprietary standards
that are equally secure/whatever, if less pretty. Both methods are
acceptable, but neither should reduce interoperability with the
other. ActiveX is one of Microsoft's favourite excuses. I expect the
wonderfully centralised Passport to develop into another-and I
expect that Microsoft will deny interoperability to, for example,
free software developers on the grounds that they cannot satisfy so-
called "reasonable technical requirements". Just more
unfair business practice.
To expand on these issues:
1: No communication protocols (TCP/IP, windows networking, etc
etc) should be extended with proprietary extensions unless Microsoft
agree to submit a complete description of such protocols for
interoperability purposes.
2: Documentation for APIS, communication protocols, etc etc, is
NEVER a security risk. Any software company who claims this to be
the case is simply acting to "preserve their intellectual
property" and they are not telling the truth. Any security
risk that appears from documentation appears because the software is
ALREADY badly designed and weak. Of course this is often true in the
case of Microsoft software-as acknowledged by Gates, quite
recently, in the press-but I do not believe that the US DOJ
really wishes to allow Microsoft to preserve their "security
through obsecurity" purposes. Leaving out documentation merely
impairs Microsoft's competitors from fair business practices. It
does not make it any more difficult for a malicious hacker/virus
writer/etc, who is perfectly capable of seeking out security holes
without any help from documentation. Do not allow Microsoft to close
their APIs or documentation, or communication protocols, for /any
reason/. Force them to open them. Let the best software win, not the
largest company-or they will stifle the desktop PC industry.
Indeed I feel that software such as Passport, which will eventually
be an important element in e-commerce, should be documented, checked
and audited before use. To do otherwise is to invite disaster.
Finally: a plea-
So much is possible with software that we have as yet barely
begun to scratch the surface; our creativity should know no bounds
but imagination. Closing APIs, witholding communications protocols,
etc, requires those of us with the ability to realise our dreams of
new software to go through years of extra effort-and most of
us just don't bother. Forcing the computer user to see the world
through Microsoft-coloured eyes is something like
censorship-ultimately, the result is the stifling of
creativity and freedom, and the eventual stagnation of the industry.
Yours sincerely,
E Tonkin
MTC-00021047
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48am
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. And let the industry developing
the American dream without stupid government meddling!
Sincerely,
Ivan Loffler
1319 Westchester Dr.
Coppell, OK 73019
MTC-00021048
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48am
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,
Christopher Houghton
PO Box 396
Shaftsbury, VT 05262-0396
[[Page 26978]]
MTC-00021049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48am
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,
Robert Ricks
3366 Avocado Vista Lane
Fallbrook, CA 92028
MTC-00021050
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:49am
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. What is the
difference if you make it easy for people to launch free software,
or have people download the free software? Microsoft provides a
service by bundling the I.E.. AOL/TimeWarner offers Netscape for
free as well, the difference is you download it. As a reseller, I am
licensed to bundle Netscape with my own Banners etc, and any
computer manufacturer/seller can pre-install the Netscape browser
also. There is no conflict with having both, I use them both
simultaneously. Further, when you buy a branded computer, you have
all of their pre-installed links, icons, and software favorites as
well. 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.
What it boils down to is this. Mr. Gates refused to provide the CIA
with an open code so that foreign countries who use the MS-Operating
system could unknowingly be hacked or spied upon by the CIA, and
this agency wanted Bill Gates to provide them with a back door for
covert operations. While Mr. Gates is a patriot, he felt that it
would place a serious mistrust in all of the software used around
the world. It would cause the enemies of this country to do more
innovative security measures making it more difficult to spy than it
currently is. Mr. Gates didn't want to play the good ol boy game and
they came down on him. What about Time Warner/AOL/ Netscape? How big
does a monopoly have to get before they are brought to their knees?
With all the global mergers, National Mergers, who is looking at the
competetive disadvantages of the big Communication/oil conglomerates
like Gulf Western etc. Or is this just another attempt by the
socialist democrats to level a little more wealth? Put a stop to
this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Schreier
78 Crystal Lane
Stevensville, MT 59870
MTC-00021051
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48am
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,
Spike Tickle
517 Green Acres Road
Bristol, VA 24201
MTC-00021052
From: Diana Tsingopoulos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Case
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please leave the Microsoft Corporation ALONE and let the market
place FAIRLY determine whose products and services are best. AOL is
just a sore loser and has NO case against Microsoft.
Thank you,
Diana Tsingopoulos
MTC-00021053
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:50am
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,
Wendy Borcherdt
400 South Bentley Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90049-3513
MTC-00021054
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:50am
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,
Billie Staunton
P. O. Box 2603
Antioch, CA 94531-2603
MTC-00021055
From: Andrew Houlihan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the current settlement with Microsoft is insufficient. It
allows Microsoft to continue to keep information regarding its APIs
secret thus preventing other companies/individuals from making
products that can truly compete with Microsoft's products.
Andrew Houlihan
(518) 276-8925
Computer Science Major "02-Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute
MTC-00021056
From: James P. (038) Dolores D. Cornwall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:52am
Subject: microsoft settlement
We feel that it is in the public's best interest to settle this
case as outlined in the settlement before the court as it is.
Regards, Jim and Dolores Cornwall
MTC-00021057
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 26979]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judges-
For a long time this country has trumpeted the concepts of free
press, free enterprise and democracy as its cornerstones, when all
of the time these three concepts, like everything else in our
society, are for sale. Now comes the most important question,
"Are you for sale?". As long as you continue to support
a legal system where large companies can pollute the environment or
sell cancer-causing cigarettes and slip away from true
accountability in "settlements" where the findings are
never revealed to the public, you judges are all shameful and put
your own integrity in doubt. So, will Microsoft continue to be able
to sell products which as they are installed prevent or destroy
competing products? Will you judges continue to be mired in
insignificant technicalities rather than recognizing common sense?
How would you react if Toyota or Honda sold only cars which caused
your Chevrolet to evaporate when you drove into the garage for the
first time? How would you respond if the Ford Motor Company told you
that you can no longer get parts or repairs done on your three-year-
old Ford because they are now selling a newer Ford, which runs
slower, requires more space, and is breaks down more often?
If Microsoft's principal product is now being replaced by an
operating system which was created by thousands of volunteers in
reaction to what they saw as abuse from Microsoft, are you able to
sense the significance of that? I worry that our society's
principles have been so corrupted that a small country like
Singapore may out-perform and out-produce us by using less valid but
uncorrupted principals: for example if their government (using
benevolent despotism) decreed that all computers use a Linux
operating system.
I worry that our bright volunteers will embarrass Microsoft
right out of business, before you judges understand that once you
allow Microsoft to dominate (essentially control) the business of
repairing or supporting their operating system, they have no reason
to create one that doesn't need repair. I remember when there were a
dozen American corporations manufacturing cars and no one
dominating. The rate of innovation was greater then.
If the US is to compete in the global technology race, we want a
dozen pioneering software companies and none large enough to both
dominate and drag its feet to make more money at the same time!
Sincerely,
Arthur M. Weber
MTC-00021058
From: Daniel Grantham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sick and tired of the Federal government interfering with
the free market. Microsoft is where it is because it makes and
markets a better product! I was a diehard Netscape user but their
product didn't keep up. The latest version was slow and hard to use.
Not only was the Microsoft product better, it was FREE! Tell me how
this hurt me as a consumer. What does hurt me is the MILLIONS spent
by the US government and various states in harassing Microsoft...an
American success story! And what about the BILLIONS lost by stock
holders and pension plans? Who are you looking out for????Why do we
punish success? That's un-American and hurts our economy. GET OFF
THEIR BACK and start supporting US industry!
Sincerely,
Daniel Grantham, Jr.
MTC-00021059
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:54am
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 D. Little
Technical Writer
6335 Phillips Ave.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15217
MTC-00021060
From: D. Jasmine Merced
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38am
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.
Regards,
Doralyn J. Merced-Ownbey
President/CEO
Tintagel Net Solutions Group, Inc.
MTC-00021061
From: Frank Danaher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir
Please be advised that I am very upset by the resort to
litigation by AOL. The country is being torn aapart by the
artificial insertial of legal decrees that have nothing to do with
the required settlements needed. I request that you facilitate the
allowing the companies to work together or else, we will have
another situation as in the asbestos, tobacco, pharaceutical, and
Dow silicone situations where major companies are allowed to be
destroyed. When are you going to provide leadership and stop this
morass of litigation. There will be no companies left if we follow
the current legal approach championed by congress supporting the
trial lawyers and in the case of MicroSoft supporting state
treasuries.
Please do not facilitate the lawyers -STOP IT-Let
the 2 companies work it out. We don't need another ENRON!!!
MTC-00021062
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am vehemently opposed to the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. My primary concern is with sections III(D) and III(J)(2),
which single out non-profit organizations as the only ones to which
1) it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization
and 2) it need not disclose information regarding the APIs for
incorporating non-Microsoft "middleware." The Open
Source software community is arguably realm where the most software
design innovation is occuring. Interoperation with Microsoft
products is an important part of any software product, whether it
come from a commercial or non-profit organization. Without the
above-mention disclosures, innovation within the Open Source
software community and the community's ability to produce software
that can interoperate with Microsoft products will be snuffed out.
Open Source software is the backbone of the Internet and provides
people with the most choices for what to do with computers. Taking
away the Open Source community's ability to compete in the
marketplace will irreparably damage innovations in software
development. The Open Source community chooses to make its money
with software differently than the "commercial" vendors,
by charging for services and distribution instead of licensing. That
doesn't make them an invalid player in the marketplace.
PETER SCHWENK Campus IT Associate 3
Department of Mathematical Sciences University of
Delaware (302)831-0437
MTC-00021063
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 26980]]
Date: 1/24/02 9:51am
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,
Penny Gurbacki
4248 Pentworth Lane
Kennesaw, GA 30144
MTC-00021064
From: Tim Kuo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
Tim Kuo
Orbital Sciences Corporation
[email protected]
(703) 421-5150
MTC-00021065
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:53am
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,
Glen Larsen
1432 Patricia Drive
Gardnerville, NV 89410-8203
MTC-00021066
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:53am
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,
Jud Cox
152 Hilltop Way
Blowing Rock, NC 28605
MTC-00021068
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:52am
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 Morgan
659 Garfield Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954
MTC-00021069
From: Juan J. Collas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Having read the settlement proposal, I think settling would be a
bad decision. I can't see how the proposal actually provides
effective enforcement against possible future violations by
Microsoft. Given this, the proposal will most likely achieve the
same results as the previous attempt to constrain Microsoft's
anticompetitive behavior.
Sincerely,
Juan Collas
MTC-00021070
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:52am
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,
Veta Wilson
HCR 76 Box 66
Coleman, TX 76834
MTC-00021071
From: David Straub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The microsoft settlement is not in the public interest because
it permits anti-competitive practices to continue, thereby forcing
consumers to spend more money than they should for inferior
software.
SUBSTANTIATION:
Q1. If Microsoft is so innovative, why do Access 97 databases
need to changed to backwards incompatible Access 2000 databases?
A1. Because they can force you to get the newest version of
their software.
1 COMMENTARY: There was a time when new applications offered
great improvements and it was worth upgrading. Even so, upgrading
should be an option to the user rather than a "have to"
because once a co-workder or business associate upgrades, you have
to due to incompatibility issues. In contrast, the HTML file
format-from the beginning-was upgrade neutral. A version
1 browser could, in theory, read HTML 4 and an HTML 4 browser could
read HTML version 1.
Q2. If Microsoft wants to add things to their operating system
to improve it (i.e. with Internet Explorer), why has Wordpad never
been updated with Word?
A2. Because Microsoft has a monopoly in the word processing
market and doesn't need to drive anyone out of business.
2 COMMENTARY: Wordpad has been in Windows from the beginning,
yet has not improved at all. Yet Microsoft somehow claims that they
had a right to integrate the browser into the operating system while
ignoring the word processor.
Q3. Why does Microsoft come out with new versions of their
operating system rather
[[Page 26981]]
than releasing free service packs to augment the old one?
A3. Because Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market
and a new OS is their license to print money.
3 COMMENTARY: little has changed from windows 95 to xp while
there has been 98, 2000 and ME in-between. Perhaps they finally got
it better with xp, but are the successive versions worthy of new
names or should they have been free upgrades? Is there really that
much of a difference between 95 and XP?
Q4: If Microsoft is such an innovator, why have they never come
out with an innovative product in their history?
A4. Because they are in the business of extensdng their
monopoly, not writing great software.
4 COMMENTARY: The first program was a copy of basic. They bought
DOS from another company. Excel was a copy of Lotus 123. Word was a
copy of Wordperfect. Word GUI was made at the request of Apple.
Windows was a copy of Apple's OS (which was deisgned at xerox parc)
They had to buy a database program, foxpro, since dbase owned that
market. Powerpoint was a copy of Harvard Graphics. We all know what
they had to do with the Internet market to catch up, especially with
browsers.
Q5: Why doesn't the price of Microsoft operating systems drop
over time and why do they become unavailable?
A5. You don't have to change your pricing and policies when
there is no competition.
5 COMMENTARY: I have had an occasion to want to buy an old
operating system. Perhaps I have some old crummy computer and would
like to add an OS for next to nothing. Why can't I buy windows 98
for $20 today? Why does the price of Windows 2000 stay the same when
hardware prices drop every month? Especially considering the fact
that-once you make your money back-it is far easier to
drop the price on software.
REMEDIES:
1. Bundle Microsoft office with the operating system including
selling Windows 98 with office "97 for $97.50 or less.
2. Require all Microsoft office documents to be forward and
backward compatible.
3. Requre all Microsoft OS code to be entered into the public
domain two years after their initial release and grandfather in
programs already released.
4. Require Microsoft to sell programs for 10 years from their
initial release.
Sincerely,
David Straub
MTC-00021072
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:54am
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,
Neal Aspinall
1255 Martha Washington Dr.
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
MTC-00021073
From: Steve Cardwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settling the Microsoft in the manner determined by the Court of
Appeals is the best thing for consumers like me. I don't want to see
Microsoft split into pieces, they have created too many good
products and services for the average consumer. They don't hurt the
average US citizen, they enable them and continue to innovate to
make our lives easier and the economy better with their
technological leadership.
Steve Cardwell
MTC-00021074
From: Todd L. Lamothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello-
I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. I
think having Microsoft resolve the "monopoly" problem by
"putting computers in to schools" is *outrageous*. Okay,
so let me get this straight: We have a company that is
anticompetitive, and you are *rewarding* them business accounts
(Schools) and *locking them in* to an operating system which we've
deemed is anticompetitive???? Perhaps you should have them fund
installing Macs into the classrooms!! Or linux!!! Anything other
than Windows.
Sincerely, I believe the present proposed settlement is an
egregious example of backwards thinking.
Respectfully,
Todd L. Lamothe
68 Halifax Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
[email protected]
MTC-00021075
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:55am
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,
Jeff Welch
226 Ridgeview Lane
Madison Hts, VA 24572
MTC-00021076
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please, 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,
Laurie Stump
471 W. Wilson Road,
Suite 20
Pahrump, NV 89048
MTC-00021077
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
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
[[Page 26982]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BURTON COBB
179 CROWN POINT DRIVE
CARSON CITY, NV 89706-0702
MTC-00021078
From: William J. Decker, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
Please leave Microsoft alone. Let the marketplace decide their
fate.
Sincerely,
William J. Decker, Ph.D.
[email protected]
MTC-00021079
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From the handling of this case by a judge that knew so little
about the subject that he had to import someone to explain it to
him, to the fact that not one cent is going to those supposedly
harmed, the users, it is time to put a stop to this case. The only
beneficiaries of this case are Mocrosoft's competitors who couldn't
measure up to Microsoft accomplishments. If the states who would
benefit from this suit can't finance their needs legitimately, let
them go hunt on their own deer lease. Enough of this poaching on
Microsoft's terrain.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now.
Thank you.
Terry Smith
San Angelo, TX
MTC-00021080
From: James R. Ehrler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Terrible idea. The objecting States have a much better idea for
a remedy to redress the results of Microsoft's grossly illegal
conduct.
Step back and listen to the objecting States and abandon the
incredibly WEAK DOJ/MS settlement proposal!
MTC-00021081
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
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,
CHARLES HILL
12300 BURLYWOOD TRAIL
AUSTIN, TX 78750-1103
MTC-00021082
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
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,
Shawn Fitzgerald
510 Grant Street
Springdale, PA 15144
MTC-00021083
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:58am
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 Cramer
100 Farmers Bank Square
Suite 230
Georgetown, KY 40324
MTC-00021084
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
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,
Melissa Seaman
431 E Todd Ave
Reed City, MI 49677
MTC-00021085
From: Walter Ellinthorpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I, for one, am opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft
for a variety of reasons. Most of them are very eloquently explained
by Dan Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
I especially agree that something should be done to prevent
Microsoft from further limiting the choices available to consumers.
When AT&T was broken up, many (Myself included) thought that it
was a bad move. Hindsight being 20-20, we now know that this
allowed the Telco industry to flourish (even though increased
competition forced tighter operations by the Long Distance Telco
providers). Now every Telco is eager to implement new technologies
in order to beat their competition to it. Microsoft has a monopoly,
therefore they have no competition, therefore they are more
interested in making sure they maintain that monopoly than in
actually improving their products For one example, just look at the
slew of security holes in their products which have allowed viruses
to spread across the Internet costing businesses Billions of
dollars. For another example see the "Microsoft Halloween
paper" at http://www.scripting.com/misc/halloweenMemo.html
Especially look the section titled "Blunting OSS
attacks" where the author states.... "Generally,
Microsoft wins by attacking the core weaknesses of OSS projects. De-
commoditize protocols & applications OSS projects have been able
to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide
utility of highly
[[Page 26983]]
commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and
developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the
market" One of the protocols the author recommends that
Microsoft "De-Commodotize" is DNS which they have since
incorporated into Active Directory. Since they are tying ALL of
their server based applications into Active Directory, this would
tie all of their applications into usinf a Microsoft version of DNS.
This paper also states that
Middleware control is critical. Obviously, as servers and their
protocols risk commoditization higher order functionality is
necessary to preserve margins in the server OS business. and...
Long-Term Commitments Release / Service pack process. Just look at
their new licensing schemes for Windows XP. This document, which was
written in 1998, with 20-20 Hindsight we see that Microsoft
not only thought about undermining standard protocols, they have
done so. We see that Microsoft has not only thought about using
Middleware to exclude competition, they have done so. They not only
thought about modifying the Release and Service pack agreements,
they have done so.
When will the US Government realize that there IS A PATTERN
HERE????? PLEASE, PLEASE put a stop this. PLEASE come up with a
better settlement. One which is more in the interest of the public
than the stockholders of Microsoft.
-Walter Ellinthorpe
Field Engineer at United Messaging
Walter [email protected]
Office 703-488-3967
5175 Parkstone Drive Suite 100
Chantilly, VA 22151
MTC-00021086
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:58am
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 Williams
1574 Coburg Rd #168
Eugene, OR 97401-4802
MTC-00021087
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59am
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,
Will Washington
7111 Tesoro Trail
Austin, TX 78729
MTC-00021088
From: Wayne Ringling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02am
Subject: My comment on the Microsoft settlement.
Dear Sirs,
I am not going to go into the reasons why I think the settlement
that was reached by the Dept. of Justice and Microsoft should not be
used. But I will go as far as to say that I do not believe that the
settlement reached will do anything but seed further entrenchment
that Microsoft binds us to their software. I therefore, are very
much opposed to the settlement offering and wish the Dept. of
Justice to seek the full remedy the court system can impose on them
whatever that maybe. Until we impose a full remedy to this they will
continue to behave in this manner, as I believe a study of current
software EULA will show nothing has changed. Also the abuse of
Microsoft to adopt open source technologies into their system os and
not abide by the license agreement further troubles me that they are
taking content from the open source community and on the other hand
doing everything in their power to limit and destroy that same
community. If we are to gain anything from this whole judgment, we
need to effect a remedy that will bolster the innovative competition
to level the playing field. I am also in favor of a quick
settlement, the longer this drags on the longer Microsoft has to
pile up funds to fight this judgment.
Wayne Ringling
4005 Lawrence St.
Colmar Manor, MD 20722
301-209-9560
MTC-00021089
From: Paul Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many reasons why the microsoft settlement is currently
to weak to move forward, most important is the interoperability of
Independent Software Vendors(ISV) to create competing products that
will be able to run the same software.
Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of competing
middleware to meet "reasonable technical requirements"
seven months before new releases of Windows. We need to remove this
limitation as Microsoft has the ability to change these requirements
while the middleware will remain locked out.
Microsoft must unlock all Api's for its windows products, we
must lift all unreasonable restrictions on the use of the released
documentation. And why is Microsoft only required to be fair to the
top twenty(20) OEM's, thats just plain wrong, many small companies
that offer competing products will be open for Microsoft's abuse!
We must stop Microsoft from discriminating against ISVs who ship
Open Source applications or for applications running on competing
operating systems.
Please make sure Microsoft will be a responsible business in the
future, the agreement as it stands leaves many items open for
Microsoft to continue its anticompetitive practices.
Paul Smith
Fort Lauderdale, FL
MTC-00021090
From: GNI Commerce, Inc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02am
Subject: MS case is far more than Antitrust -
Microsoft case is far more than Antitrust.
Please, read the articles below: Microsoft intentionally keeps the
front door of Windows XP unlocked and wide open. For which purpose?
http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/win-xp.html
Microsoft has been clearly and carefully informed that they are
making a huge mistake with security in Windows XP but they show no
intention of responding to this now very visible threat. The
question is for what purpose does Microsoft intentionally keep the
front door of Windows XP unlocked and wide open? Should be a serious
reason. Written by Steve Gibson, Gibson Research Corporation (GRC),
Aug 02, 2001 at 14:10
Who stands behind the terrorists of
September 11? http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/
bill-gates.html Want to see the truth-look at the root
first. We saw things that they wanted to show us for their purpose.
What is hidden?. Written by Dr. Vladimir Gouliaev (Dr.
"G").
MTC-00021091
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:58am
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
[[Page 26984]]
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,
Deanna Valdez
1640 La Fonda Drive
Las Cruces, NM 88001-4445
MTC-00021093
From: Bryant P McGuire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft
Folks
Please let it end. You are messing with Microsoft. They
essentially make good products that I like to use. They also support
and continue to improve what they make and keep it easy for
consumers to maintain their products. I am tired of the politics in
this. It looks to me that the government and industry are leaning on
Mr. success to slow down their comprehensive industry butt-kicking
that they have doled out.
Please let it end.
Bryant P McGuire
209 Balsam Tree Court
Severna Park, MD 21146
MTC-00021094
From: Dan Vaughan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am a small business owner and I feel that a settlement in this
case is much needed. This case has gone on long enough and the
public is not benefiting from this litigation.
Signed By:
Dan Vaughan
Knight Products Company, Inc.
www.kpcsupplies.com
(800)262-4116
MTC-00021095
From: Slocum, Sam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
It has recently come to my attention that following the lengthy
and expensive proceedings which ultimately found Microsoft guilty of
being an illegal monopoly, you as the justice department have chosen
to consult with the guilty party in an attempt to find a punishment
which would prevent an appeal attempt. I also understand that you
have chosen this option under the direct suggestion of President
Bush. As a registered voter I suggest that you reconsider the
current plan. Your current plan does little to remedy the situation
and in many cases provides Microsoft more ammunition to attack the
open source community (one of its only potential competitors) by
preventing them from using Microsoft protocols without receiving
their blessing as being secure. Additionally the problems found with
Microsoft warrant far more supervision than a three party council
that is partially determined by Microsoft itself. In all I have
found these proceedings to be an almost laughable derailing of the
justice system, and if these problems are not corrected and
Microsoft truly punished, I will seek remedy with my vote. I also in
general find that it to be very discouraging that a corporations
deep pockets could grant them so much power over duly elected and
chosen representatives.
Sincerely,
Samuel Slocum
Software Engineer
MTC-00021096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
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,
Deanna Lowther
421 East Albany
Ponca City, OK 74601
MTC-00021097
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
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,
Barbara Hume
P. O. Box 3788
Anaheim, CA 92803
MTC-00021098
From: Bryan C. Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Like many people, it is with great concern that I have read
about Microsoft's proposed settlement in their antitrust case. I
believe the best solution would be for Microsoft to simply buy
hardware that the schools themselves choose. That way, Microsoft can
attempt to make amends for their business practices while giving the
the school,s a genuine choice in what they use. After all, isn't
that the root cause of this case in the first place, the lack of
choice?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Bryan C. Powell
College of Arts and Sciences Information Technology
33 Upham Hall
[email protected]
529-1520
MTC-00021099
From: Ken Ross
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Horizon Software International
5835 Highway 20
Loganville, GA 30052
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The antitrust suit against Microsoft has been an inconvenience
to the technology field since its conception. The antitrust suit
involving Microsoft has driven stock values down, driven software
prices up, and driven public money to litigation-all at the
expense to the consumer and the taxpayer. Microsoft has been a
victim of a witch-hunt. Fortunately, the U.S. Justice Department has
reached a settlement regarding the suit. This settlement is planned
to give the consumer more choices and provide Microsoft competitors
with compensation for their alleged losses. The settlement instructs
Microsoft not enter any contract that would require a third party to
sell or promote a fixed percentage of Windows technology. Microsoft
also cannot enter into contracts that prevent software developers
from developing or promoting software that competes with Windows.
All action that is taking place at the federal level must be
stopped. This suit has only been detrimental to our financial
position. It has gone too far, and too long. Microsoft must be
allowed to return to Washington State, and leave Washington, DC.
[[Page 26985]]
Sincerely,
Ken C. Ross
CTO
Horizon Software International
MTC-00021100
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02am
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,
Thomas Burk
6508 Jackpine Drive
Bellvue, CO 80512-5646
MTC-00021101
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02am
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,
Roger Willey
1604 17th Avenue
Sterling, IL 61081
MTC-00021103
From: Jared Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As much as I think the settlement is blatant extortion, unjustly
screwing over microsoft to benefit inferior companies who,
nonetheless, waged a superior lobbying campaign, I think that it's
the least unjust thing that we can hope for at this point.
Please, please just leave this company alone. I'm not going to
go into all the common law practices that argue for such a decision,
since you probably know of them already.
I'm not going to discuss the philosophy behind personal property
rights and free trade, since 1)it's doubtful you have time to read
it, and 2)a discussion of that depth does not lend itself to a
single email. So all I can do is tell you that a young person,
married, out of college but not making much money, would like the
government to just back off. I do not work for microsoft; indeed, I
work for a company whose product competes with some of MS's.
However, I know injustice when I see it, and extortion from a
successful business on these grounds is a prime example.
You can reach me at this address, or at jared.hansen@bta-
usa.com . My daytime telephone number is 312.494.1530, evening
773.529.4651.
I am going to be an attorney (I've been accepted into Georgetown
for Fall 2002 already; I await replies from Yale, University of
Chicago, Northwestern and Columbia), and it is my goal to one day
dismantle the monstrosity that is this country's antitrust system. I
only mention that so that, in the event that I actually accomplish
this goal, whoever read this email might remember it.
Cheers
jeh
MTC-00021104
From: Baylor, Bradford
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00021105
From: Jim O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think microsoft should be forced to open all API's to anyone
who wants them and further that any major change in how the
operating system deals with hardware or the software run on it
should be presented to any developer who wants it as soon as
Microsoft has decided on that direction. Attempts to mislead
developers ot to withhold information should result in punitive
damages of at least $100,000,000 to any company affected. That way
if Microsoft wanted to play games they would end up financing the
very companies that they want destroyed. The slap on the wrist you
gave them is a total insult to everyone that has been affected by
Microsoft's monopoly.
MTC-00021106
From: Jobertito Cuaresma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a network administrator from the University of Illinois,
and I feel from a consumer and IT person point of view that the
settlement does not adequately address the indiscretions of
Microsoft properly. Because of the scope of the case, I will limit
my complaint concerning the release of OSes and Microsoft's practice
of licensing/selling of software.
From the interpretation of the of settlements, there is no safe
guards of Microsoft bundling software with their OS in the future.
Although an OS can be released without certain programs installed,
there is nothing stopping them from using the internet to install
middleware software via automatic updating after its release. It is
also my concern that there will not be an un-biased body that will
be able to determine what part of the OS is not essential. For
example, Microsoft claimed that Internet Explorer was essential to
Windows 98 and cannot be uninstalled which ultimately killed
Netscape as a competitor. For this to become fair and competitive,
it will be necessary to define what parts make an OS and what are
essential components. This decision and definition needs to happen
from a group larger and outside of Microsoft. Hence, the
"free" bundling of MS products has given the company an
unfair advantage over other competitors. Their business practices
with computer venders have also prevented other OSes to have the
opportunity to prosper or dominate. Prior to Windows becoming
standard (because there was no other real consumer alternative),
companies that produce alternative OSes such RedHat, Geoworks, and
Dr Dos were not allowed to be distributed with new machines due to
Microsoft's strict vendor agreements. Hence, Microsoft has a
monopoly. From this monopoly, Microsoft does not have the benefit of
competition to keep their pricing schemes and licensing practices in
check. As already seen, while all other software and hardware
vendors prices go down, Microsoft's prices have skyrocketed. Why is
it that Microsoft Windows XP Home edition costs $300 while the
hardware capable of running it costs $500 bundled? Since Microsoft
makes much of it's money through vendor agreements and it's OS is
pretty much the only choice for vendors, it does not need to be
competitive in pricing with consumers. Due to the pricing scheme,
consumers are forced to buy new machines bundled with Windows rather
than buy the new OS and upgrade cheaply the few components.
Microsoft has made their 3 billion dollar a month profit from
flexing their monopolistic power. Just last year, Microsoft has
written to many businesses of their new higher pricing schemes,
while also threatening to audit software compliance. With an
economic recession occurring, it would be nice to finally have this
case closed and everyone move on with life. But, if the US
government does not settle this case properly to directly protect
the consumer, then millions of taxpayers money spent and the hard
work of the civil servants are lost. Due to lack of choice,
Microsoft has bullied its way into the computer industry as integral
part with billions extremely dependant on its products. Nothing can
be done now to level the playing field,and the actions of the
settlement does little to alleviate this. Therefore, provisions have
to be set in place in order to protect consumers and businesses from
high pricing
[[Page 26986]]
and unchecked licensing schemes since competition cannot be
restored.
From my personal viewpoint, this settlement does little to
reflect the efforts of the civil servants involved in the case. It
upsets me that stall tactics can derail justice. For this case to go
this far and last thing long after finding the company guilty, the
terms of the settlement does very little and disheartens this
American citizen of the integrity of the judicial system.
MTC-00021107
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02am
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,
Ann Fruits
107 BLuegill Dr.
Gallatin, MO 64640
MTC-00021109
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
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,
Tim Ketterson,Sr
9 Boylsotn Street
Dalton, GA 30720
MTC-00021110
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03am
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,
Dave Melanson
5353 w. Desert inn rd #2041
Las vegas, NV 89146
MTC-00021111
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03am
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,
Robert Polster
776 Lincoln St.
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
MTC-00021112
From: Ned Ulbricht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This public comment is solicited under the Tunney Act regarding
the proposed Microsoft / US DoJ anti-trust settlement. My
understanding of that act is that the US DoJ, as an arm of the
federal government, is automatically presumed to be acting in the
"public interest" unless the settlement is reached under
the pall of bribery, corruption, or undue political influence.
Here is a list assembled from FEC records of some of Microsoft's
more recent "donations":
10/17/2001 $25,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
09/27/2001 $10,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
09/26/2001 $20,179 NRSC/Building Fund
08/21/2001 $50,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
06/27/2001 $10,000 DNC/Non-Federal Corporate
06/25/2001 $5,000 NRCC/Non-Federal Account
06/25/2001 $5,000 NRCC/Non-Federal Account
06/18/2001 $10,000 DCCC/Non-Federal Account 1
06/08/2001 $50,000 DSCC/Non-Federal Corporate
06/04/2001 $25,000 NRSC/Non-Federal
06/04/2001 $25,000 NRSC/Non-Federal
05/23/2001 $40,000 2001 President's Dinner/Non-Fed Trust
Taking that last item for example, nowhere else in the world
would a company's "donation" of $40,000 for
"dinner" to the chief executive of an administration
suing that company for a violation of the nation's laws be seen as
anything other than an act of cheap bribery. This settlement is most
emphatically not in the "public interest."
Edgar K. Ulbricht
3521 Shattuck Av. S.
Renton, Washington
MTC-00021113
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03am
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,
Robert Polster
776 Lincoln St.
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
MTC-00021114
From: OConnor, Edward (Edward)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
[[Page 26987]]
I am opposed to the Microsoft Settlement in its current form.
Computers and software are part of my life; they are the tools with
which I make a living and how I communicate with others. Microsoft
creates good software- I have been using the software for many
years. I am opposed to the level of control that they exert on
hardware and software professionals. Software innovation and
development was once common on the Microsoft platform, but the
company has begun to lock down all of the channels of access to
widely available hardware and software platforms. Distribution
channels which have been funded and created by the government for
the public good are now becoming controlled by Microsoft for the
benefit of Microsoft, and to the detriment of all other parties,
including independent software and hardware developers.
In particular, I am distressed that the Settlement does little
to address the strong-arm anticompetitive practices that Microsoft
engages in with OEMs. If these practices are not made illegal, or
otherwise limited, Microsoft will continue to manipulate and control
95% of the computing world, and use this power to extend into new
technology markets. Failure to address these issues now will result
in an imbalance in competition that will affect technology and
innovation for generations to come.
Respectfully,
Ed O'Connor
Independent Software Developer
Rebol Scripting Community
"Freedom in Computing"
http://www.rebol.com
MTC-00021115
From: Fred J. Federspiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Thank you for taking the time to read this note.
As CEO of a quickly-growing software company, I strongly urge
the US DOJ to allow Microsoft to innovate and add value to its
products in any manner it sees fit. Our company (NYC-based e-Xchange
Advantage Corp.) has recently made a significant investment to
support the Linux platform in addition to our original support of
Microsoft alone. Other Financial Service companies are moving in the
same direction, and we will all benefit from letting Microsoft build
a better platform. We now have a real choice, and it's in our
interest (and the public's interest) to allow Microsoft to move
ahead unhindered by antitrust issues.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Federspiel
President, CEO
e-Xchange Advantage Corp.
51 E. 42nd St. Suite 602
New York, NY 10017
212 986-1450
MTC-00021116
From: Rob Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed
final judgment in the DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Trial. The remedies
suggested do not go far enough in protecting the consumer and OEMs
from being subjected to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices in
future. As a result of the terminology used and omissions in the
proposed remedies, Microsoft are granted a great deal of scope to
continue their current anti-competitive behaviour. By way of an
example, allowing Microsoft's EULAs to discriminate against software
released under Open Source licenses (such as the GPL and MPL)
clearly has the potential to cause inordinate harm to competitors
and end users, and is completely unjustifiable, and stifling to both
innovation and competition.
It is my belief that the PFJ needs to be significantly
strengthened if it is to be regarded as a fitting reparation to end
users, and a fitting punishment for Microsoft's repeated unlawful
activities.
Yours Faithfully,
Rob Clarke
MTC-00021117
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
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,
Charles Wheeler
27326 Cranbrooke Dr.
Lake Forest, CA 92630-5845
MTC-00021118
From: Donald W. Bales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft harassment
I think the decline in the tech market was partly due to the DOJ
action against Microsoft promoted by the Clinton Administration.
Don't you think your actions may worsen the economic decline which
started in the waning days of the Clinton era and got worse in March
of 2000?
Donald W. Bales,
2009 Lynnwood Road,
Kingsport, Tn 37660
MTC-00021119
From: Alan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a software engineer with more than 20 years experience in
software development. I have developed software on Microsoft, Unix
(various vendors), Linux, and other less popular operating systems.
I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in Uniteed
States vs. Microsoft.
I am deeply troubled and firmly convinced that the remedies
proposed will not halt the anti-competitive behaviors of Microsoft.
I support and am a signatory of the open letter http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
While I support and defend any software manufacturer's right to
improve and develop new software, this right does not include
intentional efforts to limit the marketplace from providing
improvements and extensions. The Settlement includes definitions
that are so specific as to limit the effective timespan of the
remedies. Specifically, "Windows Operating System
Product" and "Microsoft Middleware Product" only
apply to Microsoft's current operating system products.
"API" is limited to stated Windows Operating System and
Microsoft Middleware Products. Microsoft can evade these definitions
by developing new products such as .NET, based upon new API's.
Furthermore, the definitions do not include a broad enough coverage
of Microsoft's products.
I want the Settlement to include any operating system sold by
Microsoft, now and in the future, that uses, supports, or refers to
"Windows" technology. I want the definition of the
operating system confined to the minimal set of software necessary
to enable Current Off The Shelf (COTS) products to function. The
operating system does not include any software capable of productive
value; It is a service-enabling and application-enabling product
only.
I want the notion of "middleware" to be discarded.
The middleware products in the settlement are applications.
Microsoft has chosen to bundle applications in its operating system
products. None of those applications are necessary to the function
of the operating system. I want Microsoft to agree to sell and price
the operating system separately from the applications. This does not
limit Microsoft from also selling bundled application packages at no
extra cost.
I want Microsoft to not prohibit in license or execution its
products or associated redistributable components from being
executed other than with a homogeneous Microsoft platform. For
example, Microsoft may choose to not support Outlook from executing
on Linux, but it shouldn't prohibit a license holder from doing so.
I want Microsoft to publicize API changes no later than making
available any version of application or operating system that
supports or uses that API. I want the definition of API to include
file formats that are supported by more than one Microsoft
middleware(sic) or application product. I want for Microsoft to
publicize all API's created or changed for any middleware(sic) or
application sofware it makes widely available. I want for Microsoft
to publicize which software patents relate to which of its products.
I am restricted from
[[Page 26988]]
safely exercising my software development skills because I do not
know when I am alledgedly violating a patent.
I want Microsoft to stop its practice of relating sofware
licenses for different products. An application product's license
should not specify how the operating system product license may be
used or which license must also be purchased-one product, one
license.
I want Microsoft to be restricted from collecting product data
loaded on a computer when validating its operating system or
application software licenses.
I want Microsoft to be restricted from making its software
products unuseable or limited without license validation.
The enforcement of the settlement does not support small
businesses for whom a long legal battle will destroy the business. I
want a fast-track review of complaints with a quick arbitration and
settlement. Microsoft should pay for this for the next five years.
The public interest is not served by yet another ineffective
settlement with Microsoft. The Proposed Final Judgement will be
ineffective.
Alan Wilkinson
President, Results Computing Corporation
PO Box 12521
Burke, VA 22009-2521
MTC-00021120
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03am
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,
DEBORAH KING
113 MARILYN CIRCLE
RINGGOLD, GA 30736
MTC-00021121
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement is a
sell-out to Microsoft (hereafter called MS). The proposed settlement
doesn't achieve much at all. It doesn't punish MS sufficiently for
its proven monopolistic, illegal behavior. It doesn't call for any
serious remedies that would preclude MS from doing all sorts of
monopolistic behaviors. It allows them to do whatever they want,
however they want, whenever they want.
The only good result is that now MS is know as an illegal
monopoly. Please rethink the proposed settlement to put some real
teeth in it.
Dan Girton
MTC-00021122
From: Regal, Robert
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello DoJ people,
First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on dealing with such
a difficult case where there are undoubtedly vast amounts of behind
the scenes plotting going on. However, in regards to the propose
settlement, I would like to ask you to reconsider your stance on it.
Please do not allow Microsoft to dominate the OS market anymore. As
I'm sure you are aware, Microsoft does promote a standard platform
which the majority of the world uses. Is this beneficial to the
consumer, you must've asked? I do not believe that it is. The
interoperability promoted by a world OS is a nice benefit of their
monopoly, but is not worth the cost in innovation, security and
quality. Microsoft has effectively squished numerous operating
systems into niches each of which actually offer demonstrable
technological advantages over Windows. I guess the real question is,
has Microsoft used its monopoly to dominate other markets unfairly.
This is obviously a yes. Why, because to gain a market share for any
given product, all Microsoft has to do is integrate that product
with their OS and they suddenly have an installed base of 90% of
American computers. I find it supsicious that the OS industry is not
differentiated into an oligopoly like the car industry, fast food
industry or even other software sectors like accouting software
(There are 3 or 4 dominant home accounting programs but none is
remotely as dominant as Microsoft is).
Please reconsider,
Robert Regal
Also, don't allow that injection of Microsoft products into an
environment not yet completely dominated by Windows. Competition is
good. Microsoft does not promote this.
MTC-00021123
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
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,
Nancy Nancy
750 Ranch Road 336
Leakey, TX 78873
MTC-00021124
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
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,
Robert Laczko
1234 Naranca Avenue
El Cajon, CA 92021-4908
MTC-00021125
From: Josh Watters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
I seriously doubt any strong consideration is being given to
letters sent to this address. If the DoJ or anyone else with
government influence were truly concerned with the thoughts of the
American public, or most critically the educated American public,
this issue would have been laid to rest some time ago with far
heavier consequences levied against Microsoft. None the less I'll
continue with the lingering hope that continued comments might serve
the public interest despite the government concerns with corporate
profit over our welfare. There are three operating systems in the
world, Mac OS, Linux, and windows. Unless you're running Mac
hardware, a minority of the population, the Mac OS is meaningless.
Which leaves us with Windows and Linux. Today, Linux is just
beginning to reach a stage where it can be installed onto a system
in under 5 hours due to its complexity. Lets add to this that
drivers for most hardware is still difficult to find and that the
Media giants have stepped in with law suits preventing Linux
operators from viewing DVD's the rightfully own. Funny how this
little seemingly unrelated topics further assist Microsoft.
[[Page 26989]]
Microsoft has absolutely no incentive to improve their software.
They force new upgrades on the public, leverage application upgrades
in the business sector, which then eventually forces the public to
upgrade applications as well. They stomped out Netscape, generally
considered to be the superior browser. Today there is no Netscape.
Sure it exist, but no one uses it, there is no strong incentive to
improve or market it, and now for all practical purposes we're stuck
with a browser that has as many problems and failures as the OS.
MS has also managed to take huge market share from AOL. Now that
in itself isn't bad. AOL should be forced to defend its turf just
like any other American corporation. But MS isn't likely to stop.
The OS market gives then the chance to do to AOL what they did to
Netscape. AOL might be a bigger target and a harder bare to kill,
Netscape never really had that much cash to burn, but MS has more
cash in the reserves than the US government. Without enforcement of
antitrust laws, AOL will fall to. Eventually we get to the Xbox. Now
MS has done nothing wrong here. But anyone with the slightest
awareness of history has to expect MS to start leveraging power in
the home video gaming arena. How will they do, I wouldn't care to
guess, there's plenty of methods. The key here is that antitrust
laws have no teeth. There has been no punitive action taken against
Microsoft. And the government has clearly said its better to break
the law and ask for forgiveness later. There is nothing but
incentive for MS to continue its current behaviour. MS is a
corporation and will behave in the manner which garnishes the most
returns. The government must clearly make it unprofitable to break
the law, else why have the laws at all.
In closing, this entire process has been made into a joke. All
technically educated people not profiting from Microsoft are
frustrated over the government's incompetence. Even the media, the
spearhead epitome of the uneducated masses has started to catch on.
So far the only thing this settlement has done is prove the greatest
American tragedy of all, "MONEY BUYS EVERYTHING!"
MTC-00021126
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04am
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,
Susan Daggett
211 Agnes St
P.O. Box 324
Rose city, MI 48654-0324
MTC-00021127
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:06am
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,
Ron Dunn
4207 e san angelo
higley, AZ 85236
MTC-00021128
From: Rob Hatton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We tried a 'consent agreement' before, and it didn't
work. Simply bust the company up.
Rob
MTC-00021129
From: Warren Dodge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
This is a public comment on the proposed settlement between the
DOJ and Microsoft. I disapprove of the settlement because it does
not punish Microsoft nearly enough for their past wrongdoing and
does not prevent them from continuing their habitual anticompetitive
practices in the future. Microsoft has a proven track record of
extending their operating system monopoly with anticompetitive
practices. Andrew Schulman published a book titled
"Undocumented DOS" in the 1980s that exposed particular
practices that Microsoft used to make their application programs run
better than competitors' programs. By deliberately hiding
information and programming APIs from anyone outside of Microsoft,
while internally publicizing that information, they guaranteed their
programs an (unfair) advantage over their competitors'.
As a professional programmer for more than 12 years, I am firmly
convinced that the innovations of the computer industry that
Microsoft takes such public credit for, would be much, much further
advanced had the company been broken up or regulated back in the
days when it was extending its monopoly from the base of the DOS
operating system. Many years later, it's hard to restore the balance
that was lost, but we must try. They have been a damping influence
on computing advancements for many years because of their tremendous
size and influence, and their extreme aggressiveness and arrogance.
They have proven over time, that they must be actively policed and
have the threat of _significant_ punishment brought
to bear or they will continue their business in their usual illegal
manner.
Thank you for your consideration,
Warren Dodge
3846 Cazador St.
Los Angeles, CA 90065
MTC-00021130
From: Timothy D Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:13am
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.
Timothy D. Smith
Senior Designer/Webmaster
Cleveland Free Times
216-321-2300x245
H- 2757 Lancashire #4
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44106
216-321-0558
MTC-00021131
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:05am
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 Gillespie
137 Valley Road
Lawrenceville, GA 30044-4158
[[Page 26990]]
MTC-00021132
From: Michael Miller
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs,
I am writing to ask that any settlement to be made with
Microsoft ensure that monopoly of the operating system market is not
used in future to extend control over successively greater portions
of the computer environment. As I sit now, to perform my job of
network administration, I am compelled to use an MS operating
system, MS Office applications, MS web browser, MS e-mail client,
etc. This company has grown so powerful it may be a threat to
national economic stability, subject to their management decisions.
Please keep this in mind, and further remember that previous consent
decrees have been easily circumvented if not outright violated by
Microsoft. They are more dangerous than they might appear.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to speak.
Michael Miller
Communications Engineer
SPS Commerce
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00021133
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:06am
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,
Mike Lewis
14647 Wellington Ct.
Noblesville, IN 46060
MTC-00021134
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
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,
A.R. Gould
7711 O'Connor Dr Apt 2507
Round Rock, TX 78681
MTC-00021135
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad Idea. It is not an
effective way to encourage free enterprise. Microsoft should have to
pay adequately for the immense number of anti-trust violations over
many years which have never been corrected. I do not want to live in
a society where computing is dominated by one monopoly company any
more than I wanted to have a monopoly run our phone services. Please
take the appropriate steps to protect consumers. You owe it to the
American public.
Sincerely,
Jim Matisi
Technical Consultant
MTC-00021136
From: Steve Troyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Do not agree withe the proposed settlement of the Microsoft v.
US DOJ. I does not punish Microsoft for its past sins. Nor does it
give adequate assurance that a proven monopolist will modify its
behaviour to foster a more competitive environment. A de facto
standard's API and other interface and file format interchange
infomation must be freely and widely available without auditing or
editing by any Microsoft dominated or influenced organization. If in
any way restricted is becomes a club to force the world to comply to
Microsoft's view of the proper order of things. And it has been
proven in a court of law and upheld on appeal that Microsoft's
actions demonstrate that its view of the marcut place in through a
monoplistic lens.
MTC-00021137
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am outraged by the Microsoft settlement. They have repeatedly
broken the law, harmed consumers by reducing choices, reducing
innovation and driving competitors out of business with anti-
competitive practices. The settlement that is in place is less than
a hand-slap and will not be effective in opening up competition, nor
will it increase innovation in the industry. The settlement must be
re-negotiated to truly reflect the nature of Microsoft's criminal
actions.
Charles Sandel
[email protected]
512-458-8431
5403 Aurora Drive
Austin, TX 78756
MTC-00021138
From: Robert Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I URGE SETTLEMENT.
R.C.WRIGHT
1524 HARVEST LANE
MANASQUAN, NJ 08736
MTC-00021139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to make a comment against the current settlement
aggreement between the DOJ and Microsoft.
I speak from an experience of developing software and firmware
for the past 17 years. I have witnessed many inovative ideas and
whole companies get ruined due to the ogreish juggernaut known as
Microsoft. This company has been able to get out from every
restriction/correction the US Justice department has placed on it.
This latest judgement shows a fundamental lack of effectively
stopping Microsoft from continuing it's monopolistic practices in
the PC/Intel market.
In the future, what business (not necessarily Microsoft) will
have any fear of the US antitrust laws if this settlement is
approved. The erosion of the effectiveness of the Sherman Antitrust
Act is the real loss to the American public.
John Griffin
34260 E. Lacomb Rd.
Lebanon, OR 97355
MTC-00021140
From: 2trash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement that would be in the best interest of the people,
is to make the data formats used for Microsoft Word and Excel files
be public domain. This would allow other alternatives to Microsoft
to be developed that support business and government. Currently
various government offices allow documents to be submitted in Word
or Excel formats, which provides further justification for making
these formats public domain. The settlement would have to limit
Microsoft's ability to upgrade formats and eliminate competition.
Public control of these formats would slow the frivolous development
of office tools that require expensive retooling every few years.
Few businesses, government offices, and schools can afford to
upgrade software every two years at more than $200 a seat. Microsoft
can continue to improve its software, but not at the expense of
others trying to do the same.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 26991]]
MTC-00021141
From: Pamela Darrah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen, voter, taxpayer and long time user of
Microsoft products, I would like to express my opinion that there
has been quite enough litigation. As a consumer, I do not feel that
I have been harmed by Microsoft. I clearly remember my first
computer (before the IBM PC and DOS) and have been involved with
computers both professionally and personally since that time.
Despite all the complaints from those who don't understand what
computing was like 20 years ago, I firmly believe that Microsoft
products have improved things for consumers. It is very unlikely
that there would be computers in so many homes, schools and
libraries that are used by non-high tech individuals without the
products and vision Microsoft has provided. There has always been
choice in software-people have chosen to use Microsoft
products. To this day there are still alternatives. If I want to I
can run a Linux, Unix or Apple operating system-with that
there are several competitors to Office that use the same file
formats so they can exchanged with other users. As far as I am
concerned as a consumer, that IS competition.
Please finish this settlement and let everyone get back to
writing better software instead of spending way too much time and
money in courtrooms. (If you really want to look at anti-competitive
behavior-investigate AOL!)
Sincerely,
Pamela Darrah
479 Colford Avenue
West Chicago, IL 60185
[email protected]
MTC-00021142
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
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 Bishop
5413-166th St
Lubbock, TX 79424-6817
MTC-00021143
From: Ritch (038) Linda Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am so tired of these lawsuits. If we are to have jobs we need
to keep big companies moving along not being held up in court
action. These companies are the ones our people need in order to
have jobs. Microsoft is will to settle let them do it and get on
with the peoples business and something more worthwhile like people
who commit criminal acts against others not legal entanglements.
Thanks you for your time and I hope you are interested.
Linda Gibson
MTC-00021144
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
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,
John Russell, Jr.
2092 Brandywine Lane
Martinsville, IN 46151-9522
MTC-00021145
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
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,
Richard Moses
2049 29th Ave NW
New Brighton, MN 55112
MTC-00021146
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07am
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,
Rachel Garfield
415 Tropic Dr.
Palmetto, FL 34221-5415
MTC-00021147
From: Sean Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to express my objection to the terms of the
tentative settlement reached by the DOJ and Microsoft. The
limitations applied to Microsoft's behavior with regard to OEM's do
not adequately limit the retaliatory options open to Microsoft. It
is ridiculous that this settlement does not protect OEM's who
install non-Windows operating systems unless they also install
Windows on the same computer.
The proposed settlement also does not seem to keep Microsoft
from withholding Windows licenses to OEM's that install certain
third party icons, menu items, or programs.
I believe that if this settlement is approved, it will have
little to no effect on Microsoft's atrocious abuse of its monopoly
power to put competitors out of business. Microsoft has been shown
to be capable of easily getting around these types of restrictions
(witness the 1995 consent decree), and I believe that this
settlement will not cause Microsoft to stop abusing its monopoly
power in any meaningful way. In addition, this settlement attempts
to limit Microsoft's unlawful behavior by specifying what Microsoft
is restricted from doing. This does absolutely nothing to keep
Microsoft from engaging in other types of anti-competitive actions
in the future. There are many other ways that
[[Page 26992]]
Microsoft can take advantage of its PC operating system monopoly
that the court has not yet witnessed. Is the Department of Justice
going to bring Microsoft to court for every new monopoly abuse that
has not already been explicitly mentioned in a settlement agreement?
Isn't it better to solve the problem at it's root rather than
repeatedly treat the symptoms at great cost?
Splitting Microsoft into an applications company and an
operating systems company (and possibly a third company for Internet
services) is the fairest, most effective solution. This would not
impact Microsoft's ability to innovate in any of the areas in which
they operate. It would also force them to compete on level ground
with competitors in the operating systems, applications, and
internet services markets. In conclusion, I ask that you reject the
proposed settlement and produce a solution that will actually have
the effect of limiting Microsoft's behavior.
Sincerely,
Sean Reilly
2818 Floyd Avenue,
Richmond, VA 23221
804 340 0943
MTC-00021148
From: Hurst, Jim
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
113 Farida Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I wish to comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft. As
a developer and engineer of 18 years experience, I have closely
watched the industry, and seen Microsoft repeatedly extend its
illegal monopoly. Now, they have been caught violating the law, and
the government proposes essentially to ignore it (this is the
opinion of no less an authority an authority than Robert Bork).
Judge Bork says that the proposed settlement clears the way for
Microsoft to extend its monopoly to most if not all areas of the
industry. This is unacceptable.
The proposed settlement would be a very bad thing for the
country. Currently, I am a security engineer. Microsoft treats
security as a public relations, rather than a technical, problem.
The implications for the country's infrastructure to be at the mercy
of a merciless and security-incompentent company are frightening. Do
you want Russian mobsters reading your email? Well, don't worry,
Microsoft will hire public relations people to help you feel better
about it.
There is the larger issue of justice. This company has done
wrong, and the government, after an exhaustive effort to prove it,
proposes letting them get away with it. Laws that are not enforced
are worthless. Please strengthen the remedies against Microsoft.
I have the following specific comments:
1) The PFJ lacks effective enforcement. Microsoft should be
forced to pay for enforcment against itself. It should post a
signficant bond against this eventuality.
2) The PFJ provides for increased technical disclosure, but this
provision is flawed in the following ways:
a) it fails to require advance notice of technical requirements
b) the provision for releasing API information is not timely
enough for competing vendors to adapt their products to meet the
requirements of section III.H.3
c) several important APIs would remain undocumented
d) unacceptable restrictions would be placed on the use of
released documentation
e) file formats would remain undocumented
f) Windows patents covering APIs would remain undisclosed
3) Microsoft is allowed by the proposed settlement to continue
to discriminate against companies that pose any threat to its
illegal monopoly.
a) Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any
OEM shipping competing OSes without a Microsoft OS. This effectively
requires OEMs to ship Microsoft always.
b) Section III.B. allows Microsoft to retaliate against smallers
OEMs.
c) Microsoft is allowed to discriminate against ISVs who ship
open source software. Since open source is the only competitive
option on the desktop, this is clearly a monopolistic practice and
should be prohibited
d) Microsoft is allowed to discriminate against ISVs who target
Windows compatible Microsoft OSes.
The proposed settlement is seriously flawed, and as written
constitutes license for Microsoft to destroy more good companies and
extend their illegal monopoly.
Please address these issues.
Sincerely,
James R. Hurst
MTC-00021149
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
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,
John Pickrell
25512 Aysen Drive
Punta Gorda, FL 33983-5526
MTC-00021150
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
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,
Roger Kerr
101 E. Hillcrest Drive
Wellsburg, WV 26070-1937
MTC-00021151
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08am
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,
Ron Bowling Jr
7575 Frankford Road #1813
Dallas, TX 75252-6459
MTC-00021152
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 26993]]
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,
Dean Saxton
438 South Third Ave
Tucson, AZ 85701-2405
MTC-00021153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
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,
Dean Saxton
438 South Third Ave
Tucson, AZ 85701-2405
MTC-00021154
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:11am
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,
John Heil
469 Reservoir St.
Herculaneum, MO 63048-1035
MTC-00021155
From: Yeager, Mark
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
Subject: Public Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I have been closely following the antitrust case against
Microsoft. I am a software engineer. For the last 15 years I have
been writing software for Windows, Unix, Linux, VxWorks, Psos, etc.
The settlement that you have reached with Microsoft is
inadequate. Every judge that has read the facts has found Microsoft
guilty. The only controversy was over a judge's behavior, not over
Microsoft's behavior. Microsoft abuses their power in the market
place to the detriment of the consumer. We are heading towards a
time where you can own a computer, but you cannot use it in your own
home without paying Microsoft $200 or $300 every year. You can own
it, but you cannot use it.
I am a capitalist, I believe in the free market, I believe in
competition. There is no competition when a market segment is
controlled by one monopolist.
I have seen the settlement document. What a load of legalistic
bull. It is so convoluted as to be meaningless. It is clear that the
Microsoft lawyers wanted it confusing so that they could argue over
it in court while the company continues its monopolistic practices.
A simple, readable document would be too easy to enforce.
Shame on you. Shame on all of you. Shame on you for falling for
the line that the economy would be hurt by furthering competition.
Shame on you for not looking out for the little guy, the consumer.
If your mothers knew what you have done, they would be embarrassed.
At a minimum the settlement should:
Prohibit different pricing policies for different customers,
although pricing can include volume discounts.
Require prices to be posted on a web site available to the
public.
Require that Microsoft products be sold for 3 years after a
newer version has been introduced.
Require that Microsoft provide service, fixes, and patches for 3
more years after a product is no longer for sale.
Require that computer manufacturers offer the customer a choice
of any operating system still available for sale.
Prohibit Microsoft from charging computer manufactures based on
number of computers sold. Only charges based on the number of
Microsoft products sold.
Require that Microsoft publish its APIs to its middleware,
operating systems, and authentification services.
Prohibit Microsoft from using any secret API for its products
that interface with its middleware, operating systems or
authentification services.
Require Microsoft to publish the APIs 6 months before a new
version of middleware, operating system or authentification service
is offered for sale.
Establish an independent testing body that will create tests for
new Microsoft middleware, operating systems, or authentification
services to test that the published APIs in fact are correct for the
middleware or operating systems. Product release could be held up if
the API does not match what was documented.
Prohibit Microsoft from requiring product registration over the
web, that phone-in registration must be supported in a timely and
convenient manner.
Sincerely,
Mark Yeager
President
Device Drivers Incorporated
PO Box 397
West Groton MA 01472
[email protected]
CC:'Mark Yeager (ieee)','Mark Yeager (home)','thomas....
MTC-00021156
From: Nancy Swaim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:13am
Subject: AOL
For AOL Time Warner to sue Microsoft on the behalf of consumers
is absurd. As a subscriber to their monoply cable company I can
assure you that TWC uses consumers as a captive source of low-
maintainance income. I want this thrown out of court! I've had about
all the protection of my rights that I can stand to support with my
taxes.
Sincerely,
Nancy Swaim
705 Kerria Ave.
McAllen, TX 78501
[email protected]
956 687 4048
MTC-00021157
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10am
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.
[[Page 26994]]
Sincerely,
gail castles
1728 Lawton Rd.
Selmer, TN 38375
MTC-00021158
From: David Lawrence Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case is a
very bad idea, given its current state. It is full of potential
loopholes due to vague and/or excessively narrow wording in many
areas, which give Microsoft an advantage, effectively rewarding it
instead of punishing it. Furthermore, some of the conditions in it
will exclude competitors" software from working with
Microsoft; for example, it only is required to provide information
on API's to "reasonable businesses," the definition of
which is first left up to Microsoft (effectively allowing it to
arbitrarily exclude whichever competitors it wants by claiming them
not to be reasonable businesses), and which does not include free
software or open source software, including Linux and software
written for Linux that helps interface with proprietary Microsoft
protocols and/or file formats. Also, there is no provision to
prevent it from patenting everything it controls, including software
technologies, in order to lock out other operating systems from
using similar technologies. (For example, note Microsoft's recent
acquisition of some of SGI's three-dimensional graphics patents; it
could prevent competitors using OpenGL or similar software from
using them anymore.)
Given that Linux is one of its few true competitors simply due
to its nature (it cannot be bought out or beaten price-wise by
Microsoft due to its free downloads; and it cannot be completely
crushed due to its programmers being scattered around the globe, i.
e. its decentralization; etc.), it and similarly free operating
systems must be allowed to interface with it in order to keep a
foothold in the market. Denying them that will eventually remove
them as competitors, allowing consumers no alternative other than
Microsoft.
A good settlement must level the playing field, so to speak. It
must allow for interoperability between Microsoft and other
operating systems; it must allow other operating systems to gain
more than tiny fractions of the desktop market, and to keep and/or
gain in the server market; in short, it must allow the most superior
technology, rather than the technology with the most market share,
to triumph with consumers. If this is not done, those consumers may
be stuck with inferior technologies and have no alternatives to
them. Also, not doing so would imply that if a company is rich
enough and powerful enough, they can do whatever they wish and
escape all negative consequences should they ever incur any; what
does that say to other businesspeople?
To reiterate, the current settlement with Microsoft is no true
punishment; it must be expanded so that it truly will allow
competing technologies, if superior to Microsoft's, to gain true
footholds and become standards. Technological standards must not be
dictated by the highest bidder, but rather by the strength and
superiority of the technology. Microsoft is not hindered by the
current settlement; it could just exploit whatever loopholes it
finds and ignore whatever provisions it disagrees with, as it did
with the 1994 antitrust ruling against it. Do not let history repeat
itself; Microsoft has broken laws, and must truly be punished for
it.
MTC-00021159
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the current proposed settlment against Microsoft
is a travisty in action. If anyone can claim to look closely at the
current state of computing and see Microsoft as anything other than
a monopoly than they are lying to at least them selves. If the DOJ
doesn't believ that MS is acting in the wrong, it would be Better to
work to repeal the anti-trust laws than to act as if MS is not
violating. -
Robert Moeckel
[email protected]
MTC-00021160
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
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,
Paul Maddy
11417 Loron Rd
Morrison, IL 61270-9451
MTC-00021161
From: Jan Knepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I am opposed by the proposed judgement. Although Microsoft is an
example of the American dream in some ways. Microsoft is even more
an example of that dream coming true and the power that comes with
that dream coming true being abused. Too many times in the past
Microsoft has wiped out producers of products that would be nice
additions to their Operating System. Just look back into the
"Stack" case, the disc compressor program.
Following that, currently the Internet is suffering a lot
because of Microsoft Internet Information Server Worm Viruses. These
Viruses are possible because of a bad design of software promoted to
the world with a lot of financial power. Of course Microsoft made it
money, but the world is paying! First for a products of disputable
quality. Second for the serious problems this product allowed to
bring in the world. Allowing Microsoft to buy their way out of this
would be a very bad example of American justice.
Thanks!
Jan Knepper
Jan Knepper
Smartsoft, LLC
88 Petersburg Road
Petersburg, NJ 08270
U.S.A.
http://www.smartsoft.cc/
Phone : 609-628-4260
FAX : 609-628-1267
In God we Trust-all others must submit an X.509
certificate.
-Charles Forsythe
MTC-00021162
From: Jared Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I will keep this short and to the point.. I fail to see how the
proposed settlement will, in any real way, punish Microsoft for past
bad acts.. or prevent it from continuing the same illegal behavior.
Considering the size and financial resources of Microsoft there must
be an appropriately strong remedy if any change in behavior is to be
expected. If it were my choice to make... I would split the company
into three sections: Operating Systems, Applications, and Network
Ventures. Only through such separation can the monopoly leverage of
"bundling" be stopped. In my view.. the IE browser would
be an application along with the Office suite and other standalone
software products. IIS and other network server software, including
streaming media, would fall under Network Ventures because of the
necessary backend integration required for network services. This
would prevent the dominance of the Operating System from being used
as a vehicle to spread limitlessly into other areas such as online
media format and content control.
Jared Watkins
MTC-00021163
From: Ralph H. Stoos Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Maam or Sirs,
I have read the documents related to the Anti Trust case. Both
the finding of fact and the proposed settlement. I am enraged so
that I feel it is necessary to generate this note. It is apparent
from the findings of fact that
[[Page 26995]]
Microsoft regularly (and with malice aforethought) did indeed engage
in grossly anti-competitive practices for a number of years.
The proposed settlement is the corporate equivalent of saying to
a juvenile deliquent "Don't let me catch you doing that
again". This "settlement" is patently absurd in
its ommisions. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for an entire
industry to develop anything for any other operating system.
I am not an anarchist. It is my belief that any company should
be allowed to succeed with a better, faster, cheaper, or more easy
to use product. That means playing on a level field and winning
"fair and square". Microsoft did do this to some extent
with Windows by placing an "easy to use" handle on the
technical task of operating a computer thereby allowing a larger
number of people to use them and get work done. This is very
commendable and I do not deny Microsoft the right to make a
reasonable profit doing just that. The starting point at which
Microsoft started to gain its monopoly standing was when Windows was
introduced. For a number of years prior to that WordPerfect was the
absolute leader in Word Processing software. It was only unseated as
the leader when Microsoft created Word for Windows. Microsoft Word
for DOS was never able to overcome WordPerfect in the DOS arena as
it was not a better product. The integration into the Windows
operating system is the only reason Word moved ahead of WordPerfect.
Lotus 123 dominated the spreadsheet market for many years until
Microsoft integrated Excel (later) into the Windows OS. The list
goes on and on. Try to imagine the number of companies that either
died trying to compete or never came to be.
This "integration" in and of itself is not
unexpected and certainly not an anti-competitive practice. It just
shows that the public expected that when the applications are
"integrated" with the OS, things will be better, and
they probably were slightly better. This is clearly a case of
"perceived value" that is not unusual. It is the
leveraging out of other applications and making it difficult to
impossible to use competing applications that is the true
"crime" here.
As an employee of Xerox which was the firm that benevolantly
"gave away" Ethernet, PostScript, the Graphical User
Interface, and the mouse in the spirit of furthering computing in
general, I am somewhat surprised that Microsoft (or Apple Computer
before it) would take this philanthropic act and permute it to their
own ends and then use it as a weapon to keep competitors at bay.
This is certainly not what Xerox had in mind and goes against the
statements that Mr. Gates has made of what his company is about. To
further emphasize my point I will make this analogy. At this point
in time in this country, if a person were to cause a company to give
them large sums of money and force them to stay in a given place for
long periods of time, you would call that extortion, blackmail, or
kidnapping. Microsoft has done the equivalent of that from a
software perspective by deliberately interlinking, causing to be
propietary exclusive, and creating interdependant OS and
applications so as to allow individual companies no viable
alternatives, all the while charging them basically whatever they
wish. Microsofts prices are not competitive because they do not have
to be. Now to the point. As part of the settlement I feel it would
be fair to have the following:
1. Mr. Gates issue at the minimum a sizable press release (my
preference would be a vey apologetic TV comercial in prime time)
which details some of his companies most heinous acts of monopoly
preservation. Then the United States public could decide if these
acts warrant them altering their OS purchase decisions for the
future. I believe many Americans are too busy to even know what has
transpired and this would inform them.
2. Cash damages in some proportional amount should be paid into
a fund that would allow for schools to purchase non-Microsoft
software to allow part of the educational process to demonstrate
that there are alternatives. If UNIX/Linux were at least shown at
schools, children would be exposed to the underlying foundation of
computing and make them more technically literate for the future.
This is not only good "playing field-leveling" activity
but would make for a smarter workforce down the road for America
which is something we sorely need.
3. The TC (Technical Comittee) should be forewarned and
monitored so that in the "field of potential gold" they
would be strolling through, none of the "dust" would end
up in their pockets. Ask Congressmen and Senators how often PACs and
other groups offer to provide "perks" and other
inducments to "encourage" legislation (or lack thereof).
Severe penalties for violations by Microsoft and the members of the
comittee should be set and explained up front so there is no
misunderstanding.
4. The five year limitation should be extended to such a date
when it is deemed by the TC (or another impartially appointed body)
that there is a viable alternative to Microsoft products in the OS
and Applications market that is readily available. This would then
foster real competition and would benefit the American public by
keeping prices down and the features of the software improving.
So, here is my "counter proposal" which is additive
to your settlement. I urge you to consider all points and provide
more than a "hand slap" to Microsoft. America and the
world would benefit. My apologies for the length of this note, but
it is an issue that weighs heavily on my sense of fair play.
Ralph H. Stoos Jr.
Technical Services Project Manager
Xerox Corporation
MTC-00021164
From: Treichel, Madith F.
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
Subject: To Whom It May Concern,
To Whom It May Concern,
I think the settlement is insufficient.
Respectfully,
Madith Treichel
Clerical Assistant
Merck Medco Rx Services
Dublin, OH
MTC-00021165
From: Steven Swift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US Justice Department,
I am a small business owner and wish to make a simple comment
about the Microsoft Settlement. The penalty must be strong and not
allow Microsoft to use their own products as payments.
Cash for the full amount, plus on-going support costs must be
provided, for at least 10 years. My company has been directly
damaged by Microsoft due to poor software quality, viruses and
forced upgrades. The penalties for Microsoft must include the
support of third party software. I suggest that Microsoft be
required to fund the Free Software Foundation to the tune of $100
Million per year for a period of at least 10 years. This money must
go into a "blind trust" so that Microsoft can not
control the money.
I also think that the settlement does not fully recognize the
Linux movement. Open source and "free" software must
explicitly benefit from the settlement. For example, a good item
would be to require a port of Microsoft Office to Linux.
As an individual, I would like to see at least $100 for each
copy of Windows, I have had to buy pre-installed on my computers.
I still think a break-up is the best for the consumer and, as a
stockholder of Microsoft stock, I prefer that settlement method as
it gives me the most value. I agree with the content of Ralph
Nader's and James Love's letter to the Court (http://www.cptech.org/
at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html).
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Steven D. Swift, P.E.
President
Novatech Instruments, Inc.
P.O. Box 55997
Seattle, WA 98155-0997
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00021166
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:11am
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.
[[Page 26996]]
Sincerely,
Harvey Martin
101 Twin Peaks Lane Sequim, WA 98382
MTC-00021167
From: William Birch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TWIMC;
I have grave concerns over the proposed Microsoft settlment in
the antitrust case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK).
I feel that the proposed actions to be taken against Microsoft
are not stringent enough. The actions specified are not sufficient
deterant against their business model and I would expect many of
their more predatory business practices to remain if the punishment
is so lenient.
-William Birch, CTO, The lyte Research Group
William A. Birch [WAB]
[email protected]
+------------+
MTC-00021168
From: Joe Block
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that Microsoft's proposed settlement is a travesty. They
want to use the penalty imposed for their monopolistic practices to
cram their product into the one market they -don't-
already have a stranglehold on: education.
If they want to donate to education as a settlement, fine. But
make them donate cash, that the education systems can use to buy
and/or support technologies that work, such as open source, not
force them to buy from M$ and increase their already monopolist
market share.
jpb
Joe Block
Information is the currency of democracy.
-Thomas Jefferson
MTC-00021169
From: Sean Eye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I wish to express my disappointment in the proposed settlement
with Microsoft. I do not believe the proposed actions will in anyway
hinder Microsoft's ability to stifle competition or bullying
tactics. If this settlement goes through, all the DOJ will have
effectively is waste tax payers time and money. I thought lady
justice was supposed to be blind to money or political leverage,
apparently not.
I would urge the DOJ to look long and hard at the settlement
proposed by the objecting states. Their proposal looks fair and has
SOME teeth. It would deter many of Microsoft current practices and
help to open the doors of competition.
Sean Eye
Systems Administrator
MTC-00021170
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:12am
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,
Donal M. Ragan
1887 East Concorda Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282-2806
MTC-00021171
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:11am
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,
MaryAnn Forry
3205 Glengreen Dr.
Lancaster, PA 17601
MTC-00021172
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:14am
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,
Anthony Ortner
700 Live Oak St.
Maitland, FL 32751-5705
MTC-00021173
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:14am
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,
Robert Treacy
375 Houghton Rd.
Sagamore Hills, OH 44067-1157
MTC-00021174
From: Thomas W. Culbertson
To: Microsoft Attorney
Date: 1/24/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to go on record as a supporter of Microsoft. It is a
shame that the resources of our government are being used against
one of our greatest national assets (Microsoft).
Why doesn't the government go after the Oil Cartel or the US
Post office, monopolies who are working against our national
economic interest?
Thomas Culbertson
MTC-00021175
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:13am
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
[[Page 26997]]
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,
Bill Woolever
2220 S Webster Dr
Midwest City, OK 73130-6722
MTC-00021176
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I hate to think of the sums that have been wasted in the DOJ
attempt to give MS competitors an opportunity to pick its bones
clean. It seems all a company has to do to get nailed by you guys is
to succeed and have some competitors seek legal assistance instead
of market support.
I have been a MS customer since the company was founded. I have
read Gates's book "The Road Ahead," I have owned stockin
the company because I believed they had superior productsand a
marketing team that was aggressive. Being a business man myself, I
know you can't expect to win in the business word unless you go
after market share like a bulldog after a cat. To punish a company
for succeeding in catching the cat is anti competitive and anti
consumer. You don't get better share of market by not offering the
right product at the right price. It just doesn't happen.
What DOJ seems to be doing is making it impossible for MS to
continue to sell its products. You won't even let the company give
them away to the schools. What's the matter with you? Are you crazy?
Would it hurt the children to have access to better information,
well delivered and simply accessed at no cost? I must be missing
something. Or is your mission to hurt the consumer, cripple MS,
enrich some states" coffers at the expense of the stock
holders and employees of MS, assist MS competitors so they can sell
inferior products at higher cost? If that is your mission, then I
strongly object to having tax payer money expended on such a
pernicious, unpatriotic and destructive undertaking.
Please give MS a break. Now especially when our nation is in the
throes of the most serious recession since 1929. Don't you think ts
time to find another target? While MS has competitors how can DOJ
say it is a monopoly? When I played the game I nobody else had a
piece of "Park Place." It was all mine.
Sorry if this letter seems curt, but I do think enough is
enough.
Sincerely,
John Rhein
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00021177
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:12am
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,
Ruthanna Wolf
8996 Cortona Drive
Whittier, CA 90603-1104
MTC-00021178
From: Sprinker Webmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-(Netscape issue)
U.S. Department Of Justice,
I am disgusted by Netscape / AOL's move to sue Microsoft, over
allegations that Microsoft's Internet Explorer illegally
"harmed" Netscape's (browser product). This is getting
insane. I find it curious that AOL decided to buy Netscape DURING
the existing DoJ trial, when it was no secret that the success of
Internet Explorer was and is based on IE's merit, usability,
compatibility and overall superiority to Netscape's browser, and not
on any virtue of "market share" on the part of Microsoft
or IE. AOL / Time Warner needs to cut the cry-baby crap, and quit
hiding behind litigation to protest Microsoft's success. Bill Gates
and his team enjoy success (albeit against continual interference
from lawyers and the government) ? because Bill Gates produces
superior and affordable software. End of story.
As a Web Site developer, I (am compelled) to run a current
version of Netscape (Navigator) alongside my copy of Internet
Explorer; to work-out "incompatibility" issues with the
Sites I write. Hands-down, I have no problems with IE, yet Netscape
refuses to display certain graphics and such. Point being made again
? I, and may people CHOOSE to use IE because it is a better product.
In closing, I request that the DoJ give credence to the spirit
of Free Enterprise and NOT grant AOL's greedy lawyers any (judgment
or penalty) against Microsoft. Leave the world's best software-maker
alone, so they can continue their mission of creating innovative and
desirable software.
Some of my colleagues prefer the Netscape product, and that's
great, too... People need to be free to make their own decisions
based on what works, and what works for them. Let the market be
dictated by the quality and merit of a product ? not by lawyers or
courts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BRUCE MURPHY
Webmaster, Sprinker Web Site
www.Sprinker.org
(253) 973-0900
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00021179
From: Chris Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the D. O. J.
Let's get this case over with. I think the settlement is indeed
in the public interest. And while we're at it ... I wish someone
would chastise AOL-Warner for buying Netscape for the sole purpose
(in my humble opinion) of having another way to bring litigation
against Microsoft ... thereby attempting to stifle the innovative
developments that would benefit Computer end users worldwide,
instead of competing in a fair and open market.
Sincerely,
Chris Jackson
[email protected]
Progressive Computing International
MTC-00021180
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15am
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,
Lewis Eagle
5120 Old Ky. 15 Pine Ridge , KY 41360
MTC-00021181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26998]]
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,
Jeff Stoltz
2615 Crestline Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603-3105
MTC-00021182
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
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 wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. Ie 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 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,
Jim Matisi
Technical Consultant
MTC-00021183
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Folks-All my life, I've been told that monopolies are
illegal. Yet, the Microsoft settlement seems to allow the monopoly
to live. This is simply incompatible with the basic belief of
fairness that all Americans possess. I sincerely hope that the
Courts can find a better settlement with this legally defined
monopoly.
Thanks,
Damien Weiss
Arlington, VA.
MTC-00021184
From: Sharon L Sandgathe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
Please do not ratify the proposed Microsoft settlement. This
settlement does not go far enough to be effective in preventing
Microsoft from continuing with its blatant anti-competetive
behavior. In addition to the immediate problems Microsoft causes in
the computer software industries, its anti-competetive strategies
cause widespread harm to U.S. productivity, thanks to the number of
people who use Microsoft's inferior products only because of the
difficulty they have finding viable ways to work around its
monopoly. Please make sure that any settlement addresses these
problems; the current proposal does not.
Sharon Stevens
Tucson, AZ
[email protected]
MTC-00021185
From: Ganesh Shankar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the MS settlement is a bad idea and restricts
competition.
Sincerely yours,
Ganesh Shankar
MTC-00021186
From: James Heitefuss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a Software Systems Analyst at San Diego Unified School
District. Our business dealings with Microsoft along with my
professional knowledge and experience in the business and consumer
markets have shown that all the court cases against Microsoft are
without merit.
Thank you,
James Heitefuss
MTC-00021187
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:16am
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.
[[Page 26999]]
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,
George Fritschi
POB 770787
Winter Garden, FL 34777-0787
MTC-00021188
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:17am
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,
Kathy Wheeldon
10605 N. 48th St.
Omaha, NE 68152-1515
MTC-00021189
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The actions and timing of AOL are so blatantly frivolous and
miserly, that the case should be thrown out before it can start.
When they merged with Time Warner, they became a formidable monopoly
themselves. Now they are taking a "shot" at a company
already embroiled in legal issues. Please do the public a service by
throwing AOL's case out before spending millions in taxpayers money.
Let the settlement talks with Microsoft go on and get this matter
resolved.
Sincerely,
Bonnie and John Dion
MTC-00021190
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:17am
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,
R. Ronald Corbett, Ph.D.
231 SE 45th Terrace
Ocala, FL 34471-3224
MTC-00021191
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:16am
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,
Roy & Faye Rushing
8343 Orchard Point Road
Harrison, AR 72601-8624
MTC-00021192
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18am
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,
Carol Culham
39 N Spruce St
P.O.Box 113
Parker, ID 83438-0113
MTC-00021193
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
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,
Charles Obenchain
1002 Park St.
Alameda, CA 94501
MTC-00021194
From: Brett Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As provided for under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on
the proposed Microsoft settlement. As a consumer, I am concerned
about the consequences of allowing Microsoft to continue to restrain
fair competition, resulting in far less choice and lower levels of
innovation to the users of computer products.
Although there are numerous objections which should be raised,
including the lack of any substantive penalties for past misconduct,
I would like to focus on only one reason which I feel is of
particular importance as we move forward from this case.
The best part of the settlement is its attempt to address the
unfair monopolistic advantage Microsoft achieves by making it
difficult for competing vendors to build software that interoperates
with Microsoft's operating systems and applications. While desiring
to remedy this problem is certainly good, the proposed remedies are
not likely to be effective.
The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to exclude all but the
very largest software vendors from access to the technical
information needed to build interoperable programs. This has an
unfair effect on both
[[Page 27000]]
small software vendors and developers of open source software. The
greatest potential for future innovation rests on precisely that
portion of the marketplace that is excluded in this settlement. A
far better remedy would be to require Microsoft to make this
technical data publicly available. The cost of compliance need not
be significantly greater than it would be if only large competitors
were allowed access, due to the relative ease with which such
information can be made available over the Internet. I am convinced
that this would be one of the best ways to protect the interests of
consumers and to promote innovation over the long term.
Sincerely,
Brett R. Holt
Takoma Park, MD
MTC-00021195
From: Don Soegaard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I want to voice my opposition to the proposed Federal settlement
in the Microsoft Antitrust Trial.
The settlement is not adequate to address the serious issues
involved.
Don Soegaard
2081 California Street
Sutter, California 95982
530-751-1942
MTC-00021196
From: Jeremy Howes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47am
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. 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 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
Regards,
Jeremy Howes
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,jeremy.h
owes@driv.
MTC-00021197
From: Cris Flagg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The prohibited conduct suggested in the settlement does little
to restrict microsoft. The final caveat whereby "This
agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to do with
security or copy protection" is already leveraged against the
spirit of the settlement. IN a recent press release from Microsoft
"Microsoft's co-founder called on the industry to acknowledge
that the solutions to security and privacy challenges, which are
often comingled in the minds of consumers"
Future circumvention of the spirit of this or any agreement will
be based on the requirements of "security" rather than
integration, as was the internet explorer/netscape case.
I do not believe this settlement punishes microsoft in any
meaningful way nor does it force microsoft to act in an anti-
competative manner. Even with the light treatment Microsoft is
receiveing it is already setting the groundwork to avoid the
restrictions of this settlement.
MTC-00021198
From: Theodore A Isabella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
Subject: Comments for the public record DOJ v Microsoft
To the Honorable Kollar Kotelly and Renata Hesse,
Attached is a Microsoft Word document containing my comments
concerning the DOJ v Microsoft case. Please advise if this is
acceptable (to submit as an attachment). Otherwise I can submit any
way you prefer.
Regards,
Theodore A Isabella
MTC-00021198-0001
Theodore A Isabella
116 Kent Drive
Clayton, DE 19938
302-6534207
[email protected]
To: The Honorable Kollar Kotelly
CC: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
Subj: Comments for the public record US DOJ v Microsoft
[[Page 27001]]
To the Honorable Kollar Kotelly, January 24, 2001 I appreciate
this opportunity to submit my thoughts and comments concerning the
Department of Justice's Anti-Trust case against Microsoft. I was
motivated to write after reading recent rulings in the DOJ v
Microsoft case. I realize what I am about to say may be described as
"closing the barn door after the horse got out." Yet, I
ask for your patience and indulgence as you listen to my comments,
for that kindness I thank you in advance.
Who am I to comment on such a case? And, what qualifications, if
any, do I bring to the debate? Both are fair and reasonable
questions to ask. I am a multi-system technology professional, adapt
inside of the Microsoft technology world and outside of it as well.
I am well trained enough to make a living as an Independent
Consultant and have been doing so since the mid 1990's. In addition,
my total experience in the technology profession dates back to 1972.
It's my belief I have the necessary background and life experience
to understand these recent rulings within the context of the law as
well as the industry I've been privileged to work in these last 30
years.
When we compare this case to the one that established the
benchmark (Standard Oil) for Anti-Trust legislation we do not see
the logical components to support the DOJ's position (to take Anti-
Trust action against Microsoft.) By this I mean, in the Standard Oil
case it was clear behavior by Standard Oil impeded competition and
hindered the free market system; by the direct result of actions
taken by Standard Oil the consumer was put at risk, e.g., by the
effective blocking of competition from the well-head, through
production, to the gas pump, the consumer could not benefit by the
free-market. It is clear that Microsoft does not, nor did it ever,
have this kind of control over the free market. Hence, my first
point is, this case does meet the test for Anti-Trust action.
This leads me to my second point-who benefits from any
Anti-Trust ruling against Microsoft? I believe any Anti-Trust ruling
against Microsoft actually promotes the kind of behavior we intend
to stifle via Anti-Trust legislation. How so? It's my belief that
the companies who helped initiate the legal action are being
rewarded for bad business practices. What am I talking about?
MTC-00021198-0002
Business decisions. Here is where my experience and technical
background forces me to disagree with any ruling that subscribes to
the notion that Microsoft is a monopoly. The primary reason for
Microsoft's success has more to do with others" poor business
decisions than anything else. The idea that there are insufficient
resources available for the free-market to produce a remedy is
false-it is simply untrue. Companies like Apple, IBM, Compaq,
HP, and Dell, to name a few, have the capacity to produce a
competitive Desktop Operating System and roll it out within a year.
That's correct, I said one year. How is this so?
u Apple Computer Corporation: had, at one point, an x86 project
that ported the Mac OS to the x86 chip. Though it was already in
Beta but for "business" reasons Steve Jobs killed the
project. Another interesting business decision by Apple was the
pulling of the Mac clone licenses. One of its major vendors, a
company called PowerComputing, was starting to roll out Mac clones
with a newly developed OS called the BeOs. The BeOs was designed to
run on multiple CPU architectures, i.e., both the x86 and the Apple
PowerPC chip. Question, why did Apple pull the license? Answer, a
business decision.
Using the DOJ's logic, could this not be construed as Anti-Trust
behavior, stifling competition for the PowerPC chip? �IBM and
OS2Warp. Clearly IBM is a company that has the financial resources
to go toe- to-toe with Microsoft and did not, why? Consider its
joint venture with Apple and Motorola that produced the next
generation CPU, the PowerPC chip. A Swedish technical team ported
the Mac OS to IBM's RS-6000 computer system, and did it in 6 months!
So we know from experience that IBM can roll out a competitive OS
that will run on multiple CPU architecture in a relatively short
period of time. Additionally, IBM already has an OS that runs on the
x86 chip, it's called OS2. Why not ask IBM, who, with its R&D
clout and a true 32 bit OS already in production, how come it
abandoned the Desktop OS arena? Answer, business decision.
u Windows is not a dominant OS. The Windows Operating System may
be the dominant Operating System (OS) in the United States, however,
depending on which country you are in it may not be. For example, in
Canada the Macintosh OS has a dominant footprint in the business
community, as it does in Europe and the Asian-Pacific basin. Apple,
after-all, is a multi-billion dollar a year company, someone,
somewhere, is buying its Mac OS over the Microsoft OS.
The aforementioned are only a couple of examples of many. I
could site similar stories for companies like Sun, Compaq, HP, and
of course what about the hardware vendors like Dell who have the
financial resources to port already existing OS's to their
platforms. The question begged by my examples is why not? The answer
is simple, "business decision." And therein lies my
concern; any Anti-Trust ruling against Microsoft actually rewards
these companies for making bad decisions that have negatively
impacted the consumer.
When one examines the facts, looks at the benchmark for Anti-
Trust, one is forced to conclude that the DOJ's case against
Microsoft has been at the outset an effort to reward those, who for
their own personal business reasons, refused to compete in the free-
market system, which of course, is their choice, however, I argue we
ought not to reward that kind of behavior. I respectfully submit
that the DOJ's Anti-Trust case against Microsoft should be
dismissed. Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts, I
remain,
Sincerely yours,
Theodore A Isabella
MTC-00021198-0003
MTC-00021199
From: Magister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
Subject: Settlement
304 S Lowry
Stillwater Ok, 74074
January 18, 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;
Though I am a laymen regarding this trial, I have been following
it avidly in the media, and I have been watching the settlement
process with horror. In spite of the courts" findings that
Microsoft is a monopoly which has abused its monopolistic powers, a
settlement is being reached which does virtually nothing to deal
with either their past crimes or to keep them from committing future
crimes.
From my point of view, Microsofts monopoly combined with its
unwillingness to provide information about its products which many
consumers have no choice but to use due to the fact that Windows is
the only operating system which will work with certain commercial
software which may be necessary for the completion of a task,
especially by those not intimately familiar with computers and the
methods to program and configure them, has significantly harmed the
market.
Their willingness to alter their API and drivers models, often
without providing full details on their modification makes it
difficult for developpers to create software or drivers which they
know will be compatible with future versions of windows. Yet at the
same time, Windows ME, 2000, and to an even greater degree, enforce
compliance with these not fully disclosed and arbitrary driver
models or "warn of impending doom" if the user attempts
to install drivers which have not been certified and digitally
signed by microsoft as being compliant.
It is my opinion, that at the very least, Microsoft should be
forced to avoid many of these past transgressions by providing full
disclosure. I am not an extremist and do not advocate some peoples
suggestion that Microsoft should be forced to expose the source code
of Windows, however, I do strongly support forcing Microsoft to
fully document its APIs, driver models, and file formats.
Sincerely
Timothy Wiseman
TAW.
MTC-00021200
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:20am
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
[[Page 27002]]
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,
Ron Ron
650 Ramawood Dr.
Concord, NC 28025
MTC-00021201
From: Ruth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir:
Will the Government please stop wasting taxpayers money in
regards to Microsoft. Let the free enterprise work. AOL has no case.
I have always used Netscape on Microsoft windows. I will let AOL
know that, too.
Ruth A. Yobs
Tobyhanna, PA
MTC-00021202
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
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,
Harry Miller
4981 Partridge Way
Ogden, UT 84403-4457
MTC-00021203
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is doing nothing wrong but running an efficient and
profitable business. Something most software companies that publish
titles for the common household PC cannot accomplish. Therefore,
they blame the largest marketshare holder as the reason instead of
their substandard competitive offerings. The proposed settlement
will do nothing to help those whom cannot compete with inferior
development. The fact that alternate operating systems DO exist
clearly prove no monoply is present.
Steven Moore
U.S. Citizen
MTC-00021204
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
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,
Gerald Dunn
1441 Old chapin Rd.
#913
Lexington, SC 29072
MTC-00021205
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
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,
Laretta Pinkleton
2903 S. Troy Ave.
Marion,, IN 46953
MTC-00021206
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:20am
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,,
Irma Atanasio
20920 Kelly Pl
Denver, CO 80249
MTC-00021207
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19am
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,
patricia fox
p.o.box 414
port clinton, OH 43452
MTC-00021208
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Netscape is simply acting like a cry-baby. Our country should be
encouraging, not punishing, business and innovations. 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
[[Page 27003]]
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,
Sydney Corbett
231 SE 45th Terrace
Ocala, FL 34471-3224
MTC-00021209
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Dear Sir:
Dear Sir:
During this time of world wide chaos, it's incredible to me that
everyone is wasting their time on law suits. This is especially true
for the State Attorney Generals who couldn't defend the country from
terrorists at their airports. Put your mind and actions on important
matters, injstaed of trying to help[ companies who fail in the
market place. Carl Kapikian 2401 Fairway Drive N. Jupiter, FL PS I
own shares in MSFT but I own more shares of AOL
MTC-00021210
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
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,
Loren Syrjala
211 N Pine St
PO Box 729
Gwinn, MI 49841
MTC-00021211
From: Matthew Barone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an American citizen I am embarrassed to think that the US
government would so easily settle this case. I think the proposed
settlement will most likely be an example of the close ties this
Administration has with corporate leaders and therefore I do not
support it.
Matthew Barone
Marblehead, MA
USA
MTC-00021212
From: Bob Knapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23am
Subject: Enough is enough
Leave Microsoft alone!!
Our anti-trust laws, unlike those of Europe, are to protect the
consumer, not to protect uncompetitive competitors, such as
Netscape. Just how am I, the consumer, harmed by receiving a free
product? Does Ford sue General Motors because GM cars come with a GM
radio installed at no extra cost? Of course not.
Stop this attack on our American success story-leave
Microsoft alone.
Bob Knapp
Missoula, MT
[email protected]
MTC-00021213
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
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,
frank
6645 e.hermosa vista dr.
mesa, AZ 85215-2207
MTC-00021214
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
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,
George Alaniz
17483 Mallory Dr.
Bloomington, CA 92316
MTC-00021215
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please continue to enforce anti-trust laws.
Microsoft has consistently violated many provisions of the law,
and should be held accountable for its actions.
Computer technology has been the prime force behind productivity
increases in the American and world economies, particularly in the
last 10 years. Small companies with innovative ideas are at the
mercy of the predatory practices of Microsoft, and enforcement of
anti-trust laws will help to ensure that the astounding productivity
improvements which have fueled economic growth in the recent past
are not strangled.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Mulligan
13360 Milwaukee Court
Thornton, CO 80241-1326
MTC-00021216
From: Bob Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing in opposition to the current terms of the proposed
Microsoft/DOJ settlement.
Although there are many aspects of the proposed settlement, a
particularly glaring omission is the format of files/documents
created by Microsoft Office products will remain hidden and
proprietary.
These files, which are essentially the intellectual property of
the person/user who wrote them, cannot then be reliably used, except
with the aid of a Microsoft product.
This would include letters and spreadsheets, even though
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications
Barrier to Entry, described in the "Findings of Fact",
paragraphs 20 and 39.
Bob Shaw
Network Administrator
Cronosys, LLC
Cleveland, Ohio
216.221.4600 x354
MTC-00021218
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
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
[[Page 27004]]
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,
LEE BROSCIOUS
715 CATAWISSA AVE
SUNBURY, PA 17801-1535
MTC-00021219
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
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,
Andrew J. McVeigh III
48 Cottondale Road
Austin, TX 78738-1329
MTC-00021220
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21am
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,
Catherine Daley
84 Loft Drive
Martinsville, NJ 08836
MTC-00021221
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
Ladies & Gentlemen:
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." This economically-draining
witch-hunt has gone on long enough. Stop it now!
Ronald Faria
Manteca, CA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,PBEHR1@
aol.com@inetgw,daveiv...
MTC-00021222
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
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,
Kathy&Bill Signorile
2360 Hemlock Farms
Hawley, PA 18428
MTC-00021223
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
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,
Ralph Pope
64 Winter Street
Somersworth, NH 03878-2743
MTC-00021226
From: Ann Wahlstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree with this settlement. Monopolies are not good for
our economy, I would like to see diversity and competition.
Thank you-
Ann Wahlstrom
Lake Benton, MN.
MTC-00021227
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
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,
Virgil Ragsdale
313 Buena Vista
Altus, OK 73521-1129
MTC-00021228
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree that the proposed settlement is sufficient remedy
for Microsoft's monopolistic practices, and I do not feel it serves
the public interest. As a software applications specialist, I have a
keen interest in the present and future state of software for both
Macintosh and Intel-compatible computers. I also worked as a
mainframe operator in the past, so I know a little about that aspect
too. In all of these areas the
[[Page 27005]]
proposed final judgement in the Microsoft case doesn't cover enough
or go far enough.
In particular, the proposed settlement:
-doesn't address Microsoft's current prohibitions and
restrictions on useful, currently-available freeware, shareware,
add-ons and competitors" software and firmware;
-does nothing to prevent Microsoft licenses from
"locking out" competing software developers simply by
changing the name or minor technical requirements of existing or new
software;
-is so narrowly worded that Microsoft's own next-
generation software and current licenses aren't even covered, even
though its anti-competitive practices are certainly still in use;
-doesn't address Microsoft's proven technique of adding
incompatibilities to punish and discourage users of non-Microsoft
operating systems (evidence presented in the 1996 Caldera v.
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit); and
-doesn't address Microsoft's restrictive and anti-
competitive licenses for very large end-users
('enterprises').
I've used many kinds and sizes of computers and computerized
equipment since 1981. In those two decades I've seen a dramatic
decrease in the number of operating systems available, in the
availability of competing software for office and home tasks, and
ultimately in the types of computers available. I believe this has
been a direct result of Microsoft's growing stranglehold on computer
OEMs and software developers and users, and it has not resulted in
better software or more choices for consumers!
The proposed final judgement in the Microsoft case chiefly
serves Microsoft's interests, as written. The indecorous haste with
which it was revised and released, without the support of the DoJ's
own staff who have worked with the case for years, presents the
appearance of a "promise bought and paid for" and opens
the American civil justice system to criticism by the entire world.
Roberta A. Kennedy
5484 Pelican Way
St. Augustine, Florida 32080
MTC-00021229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
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,
Jamie Thigpen
9550 Alta Mira Drive
Dallas, TX 75218-3560
MTC-00021235
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We want this case settled as agreed with no further delay.
MTC-00021241
From: Ed Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1-24-02
Please stop the action against Microsoft. 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.
Thank you
Ed Herman
821 Hasbrock Rd
Norwalk, OH 44857
MTC-00021242
From: list(u)7531 at Hotmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Here are my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust case:
1. Surely Microsoft has far too much influence over the computer
manufacturers. If Microsoft force them to sell PC's which only have
Windows installed, or are Not allowed to sell Windows on their PC's
at all, that prevents fair competition at the most important point.
2. In the "Internet age" product security features
are essential. If PC's can be hacked, that poses a grave threat to
National Security because these vulnerable systems can be used to
crash Government mail servers. Microsoft should be held accountable
for this. One viable option is to make them offer a
"bounty" for each vulnerability discovered, without
allowing them to impose punitive non-disclosure terms.
3. In view of this, should Microsoft be made to audit all the
program code in their Windows operating systems within a reasonable
period. This is essential in the "home user" environment
where trained support personnel are not available, and there are no
firewalls to stop hackers. Updates would not always be performed by
users who didn't understand the importance of the security issues
involved.
4. To promote fair competition in the software development
market, Microsoft should be required to disclose, in full, the
network protocols and programming functions used in their products.
They should also be made to fully disclose all future network
protocols and other "application interface" features
such as the Hotmail "HTTP mail retrieval" protocols, for
"fair competition" purposes and security audit.
Regards,
Adrian
MTC-00021243
From: CSC(u)JHM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs!
What I have seen/heard of the proposed settlement appears to
legalize rather than correct Microsoft's abusive monopolistic
behavior. I don't see where any of the proposal will increase
competition and benefit the small consumer. You should at least
force unbundling of the software from hardware.
John H. McCoy
MTC-00021244
From: Wong fei-hung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Tunney Act-PFJ-My Two Bits
Hello,
I am writing because I believe the PFJ in the Microsoft
Antitrust Case is severely lacking in several areas. The key areas I
am concerned with can be found outlined at the following internet
url:
Please look at these points and reconsider what you feel is the
appropriate action. I worked for CompuServe and was there for the
merger with AOL. One of the things I didn't understand is how the
government would go to AOL/CompuServe for a definition of what an
online service is. Somehow AOL/CompuServe convinced the Antitrust
Division that they were an "internet service provider"
and had plenty of competition. This point was key to getting the
approval to merge.
This couldn't have been farther from the truth. AOL/CompuServe
are online community providers that also happen to provide access to
the internet. There wasn't any comparable service of any size at
that time. Now AOL has the market cornered as an Online Community
Provider and the CompuServe "brand" is dying a slow
quiet death.
The PFJ looks like the Antitrust Office is making the same
mistake again by allowing a technical company to use smoke and
mirrors to negotiate an outcome that will have little to no long
lasting effect on Microsoft and doesn't halt their monopolist
practices one iota.
Thank you for your time,
Raymond L. Haines
Support Analyst
U.S. Citizen
MTC-00021265
From: William C. Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00021265_0001
January 16, 2002
Okeechobee, FL 34974
William C. Hunt
[[Page 27006]]
814 Seven Lakes, N.
West End, NC 27376
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a long-standing professional member of my community, I have
been and still am outraged by the government's unending pursuit of a
successful corporation such as Microsoft. I attribute the
exponential surge ill the economy of the 1990's and the technical
advancements of the last fifteen years to the Microsoft product line
and their innovation. This all being said, I am relieved that the
Department of Justice has finally agreed to settle this judicial
debacle with Microsoft and allow all parties to move on.
Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a
load of rubbish about railway timetables. This settlement, three
years and three months to late, provides for increased competition,
the fostering of innovation and while not needed, a greater sense of
accountability. According to the settlement, Microsoft must submit
its software and business records to a government oversight
committee. The role of this committee is to ensure Microsoft's
compliance with the settlement. While I do not agree that this is
necessary, the fact that Microsoft has agreed to it shows that their
highest interest is the public and ending this action.
But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see
this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized
society.
The settlement offers an opportunity to revitalize our economy,
and we should take it.. Furthermore, I would suggest that you
encourage the several states not following this settlement to change
their minds. When Shunt says the 8:15 from Paddington he really
means the 8:17 from Paddington. The places are the same, only the
time is altered.
Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister, and knew her
bloody well.
Sincerely,
William Hunt
814 Seven Lakes,
North West End, NC 27376
cc: Representative Howard Coble
00021265_0002
MTC-00021292
From: Mark Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
-Original Message-
From: Mark Walsh [mail to: [email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:22 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: WHY HASN'T MICROSOFT COUNTERSUED OVER AOL'S INSTANT
MESSENGER MONOPOLY?
AOL's refusal to cooperate on developing an open standard for
instant messaging proves they are using their position in the market
to maintain their monopoly. Why do I have to have unfriendly AOL
software on my computer that has compatibility problems with other
software because they refuse to work with other companies? Instant
Messenger type software has become a primary reason to own a
computer and may shortly overtake the importance of browsers.
It seems AOL has become the most monopolistic of all and no one
in Washington cares (or they own too many AOL shares to care).
Mark Walsh
An Actual User
MTC-00021294
From: Mark Lowenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the DOJ has taken a very soft approach to the
Microsoft settlement, that the public will continue to pay for with
reduced innovation and poorly designed products. I have been a
student of the industry for years and find it hard to think of one
real major concept that Microsoft was a true innovator. The company
puts out marginal products that would not be successful in a true
competitive environment.
It is a also clear to me the Netscape's browser was a victim of
Microsoft's predatory practices and I feel that the DOJ has caved on
this case.
CC:[email protected]@inet
gw
MTC-00021295
From: Jonathan Darnel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir or Madam:
To put it simply, the proposed settlement of the Microsoft
Antitrust Suit is weak in restrictions and lacking in the realm of
enforcement. Instead of being a solution, it simply perpetuates the
problem. Microsoft has consistently shown itself to be in contempt
of the DoJ, and of any agreements it has made with that entity. Do
you really believe that they, for a second, intend to abide by this
agreement. Do you truly believe that Microsoft fears another legal
battle with the DoJ after having twice now fought you to a
stalemate?
What needs to be required of Microsoft is a capitulation of
Microsoft of the part of what types of software they own and
develop. Microsoft owns and develops games, operating systems, web
browsers, office suites, and many other software tools. It is time
for Microsoft to relinquish some of the markets it has dominated for
so long.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Darnel
50949 Clover Rd.
Granger, IN 46530
MTC-00021296
From: peterson abilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:29am
Subject: against microsoft settlement
Microsoft got a slap on the wrist. Please consider a harsher
ruling.
Peterson S. Abilla
MTC-00021327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
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,
chris hoopman
500 155th Ave. NW
andover, MN 55304
MTC-00021329
From: Mark R. Millsap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I would request the DOJ to re-visit and re-work the Proposed
Final Judgment settlement for the following reasons:
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms and
Anticompetitive Practices currently used by Microsoft
I am most concerned with Microsoft's actions towards OEM's that
ship PC (and other computing devices) with competing Operating
Systems and Application software. I wish for a level playing field
when selecting PC's and PDA, for instance. I don't think that the
OEMs are receiving neutral treatment if they consider other sources
than Microsoft. (Pressure on Dell for shipping Linux boxes for
example.)
And finally, the PFJ as currently written appears to lack an
effective enforcement mechanism. Needs better teeth.
Best Regards,
Mark R. Millsap Millsap
Residence Potomac Falls, Virginia
MTC-00021330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
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
[[Page 27007]]
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,
Rita Egide
2724 Wyatt Court
Rocklin, CA 95765-5608
MTC-00021331
From: Doug Lewis
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am extremely disappointed in the Department of Justice's
handling of the settlement. Why have you gone out of your way to do
what Microsoft wants when they're the one who has broken the law? By
the way you have handled this matter it seems like anybody who is
arrested by the FBI and convicted of federal charges should get to
choose how much time they spend in jail.
Thanks a lot for selling out me an millions of other American
consumers and businesses for no real reason.
Doug Lewis
MTC-00021332
From: Chung Chang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom may be concerned,
I strongly favor a settlement between US Government and
Microsoft Corporation. We have waste a lot of money and time going
for a litigation instead of channeling our resources toward
innovations that are going to put our nation ahead of foreign
competitions. Somehow in our legal mass we have forgotten that there
are plenty of competitions outside our country. I believe that our
government is smart enough to lead us into 21th century that is
going to encourage innovations rather than protect the losers in the
market.
Sincerely,
Chung
MTC-00021333
From: Larry J. Kopenkskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
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 feel that the conditions of the United States v. Microsoft
Settlement fails to properly reprimand Microsoft for it's anti-
competitive behavior. The conditions of the settlement do not call
for an opening of the windows file formats. I consider this a
critical omission.
The opening of the windows file formats must be combined with
effective documentation of API's. Microsoft should be required to
release information about Windows interfaces. The definitions of
"Microsoft Middleware Product" and "API" is
to narrow, and provides loopholes for Microsoft to avoid any
meaningful enforcement.
Definition U should be amended to read: U. "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.
Section E should be amended to read ... Microsoft shall disclose to
ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the purpose of inter-operating
with a Windows Operating System Product or with application software
written for Windows, via the Microsoft Developer Network
("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to inter-operate
with a Windows Operating System Product ...
III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be amended to
read
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) includes a
non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating System
Product; or ...
In 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft the judge in the case ruled that:
"Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by
Microsoft."
The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to
sabotage Windows applications, middle-ware, and development tools so
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as
they did earlier with Windows 3.1. The actions of Microsoft's
executives in court (they appeared to make misrepresentations under
oath), combined with Microsoft's previous actions (1996 Caldera v.
Microsoft), should effect the severity of Microsoft's punishments
for it's behavior.
The current settlement provides to many loop-holes for Microsoft
to wiggle through. A more restrictive settlement is necessary, but I
feel proper restrictions will only come from a judgment. Anything
that Microsoft *agrees to* is not severe enough. Larry Kopenkoskey,
Caledonia, Michigan; Electrical Engineer, Hardware and IC Design
Engineer; Member IEEE.
MTC-00021334
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27am
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,
Julie Mercer
1473 N. Emerald Ct.
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
MTC-00021335
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27am
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,
Harry korrell2
117 Melvin Avenue
chicago, MD 21228-4427
MTC-00021336
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27am
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
[[Page 27008]]
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,
Margaret Lipka
332 Doyleson Ave
Endwell, NY 13760
MTC-00021337
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
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,
Richard Moran
4533 Teesdale St.
Philadelphia, PA 19136
MTC-00021338
From: Daniel F. Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
OK, so let me see if I'm reading the Final Judgement right:
- Microsoft doesn't have to admit to being a monopoly, or to
being guilty of anything, in spite of the fact that they
-have- been judged to be one.
-Retaliation against OEMs is prohibited, but impossible to
prove, given the way things are set up. On the other hand Microsoft
can cancel a licensing contract with any OEM, whenever they feel
like it, so long as they give them written notice and the supposed
reason for the cancellation.
-They can't prevent OEMs from installing and/or displaying
icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for non-MS middleware...unless
they make changes in the Windows Documentation; sure, they'll have
to prevent their own middleware from working, but that's OK, they
can charge whatever they want for the OS and sell the middleware
separately, plus they don't even have to document it if they do the
beta testing right (see below)...
-MS can't prevent ISVs from competing with them, or advertising
competing products...unless it's written into a contract they have
with them (and if it isn't and they compete, you can be sure MS will
do everything in their power to make sure things don't work, then
claim IP protection allows them to do so, thanks to the clause right
afterwards). Not to mention that if you don't have a contract with
MS, they can easily punish the ISV by forcing incompatibilities
through new "features" (see the part on ActiveX
controls) or by implementing some sort of proprietary security
meaures (see the part on APIs and Communications Protocols), whose
workings they then cannot disclose (so sorry)...
-MS can't force vendors to support their OSs whether they want
to or not...unless it becomes apparent that the vendors could
conceivably sell more non-MS products than MS products, thereby (god
forbid) encouraging some semblance of competition...ah, the free
market at work...
-MS can't prevent non-MS middleware from loading...unless they
come up with a new "eature" involving ActiveX controls
that the non-MS middleware is incompatible with; not that they would
-ever- do something like that. Yes, they have to tell
the ISV, and they will, at the last possible moment, delaying as
much as possible, until that particular bit of MS middleware is
either very well established or can be claimed as "a necessary
part of the OS", or somesuch thing.
-MS has to disclose how their APIs and Communications Protocols
work...unless those things relate is some vague, unspecified way, to
some sort of security issue dealing with "anti-piracy, anti-
virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or
authentication systems, including without limitation, keys,
authorization tokens or enforcement criteria". So in other
words, all they have to do is build encryption into all of their
Communications Protocols, for instance, and no matter how bad or
ineffective it is, no one can ask how it works, thus allowing them
to continue abusing their monopoly power.
-A technical committee will be formed to ensure that MS is doing
what they're supposed to be doing, according to the settlement, will
also take complaints from whomever wishes to complain, and make
recommendations as to what to do about them...but the findings of
the TC will never make it inside a courtroom! So much for trusting
the experts...
-...not to mention the fact that MS gets to pick one of the
members of the technical committee, who in turns helps to pick the
third!
Why on -earth- would you give the people who have
been judged to be at fault in this case have -any- power
over the enforcement of their own punishment? You can be sure that
whoever they pick will be biased, pro-Microsoft, and the
restrictions on how long it's been since the person worked at
Microsoft are pathetic; someone could've quit MS at the start of the
anti-trust proceedings and already be ready to go for the
committee...
-NONE of this applies to -anything- other than x86-
compatible PCs!! So handhelds that run Windows CE, game stations
like the X-Box, and any other machines that can run Windows are
exempt from any of this- Because of course Microsoft would
-never- attempt to abuse those markets as well. Why on
earth should the settlement be limited in this way?
-MS can go about its business, making no disclosures about its
middleware, so long as their beta tests involve less than 150,000
testers!! Why should they -ever- go above this number,
then? That's enough to test -anything ....
-MS gets to decide, at its sole discretion, what qualifies as an
operating system, giving them enormous power to modify the impact of
this judgement on future products.
-...not that it matters, since this "remedy" is only
good for five years, seven tops if the courts decides to extend
based on some sort of systemic violations found in Microsoft's
behavior.
In summary-This "Final Judgement" will NOT
remedy the situation !! ! ! The consumers will -still-
suffer due to abuses of power by the Microsoft monopoly, just as
they had before, but if this settlement is made, the states who
settled (not to mention the federal government) will lose their
legal ability to -do something- about this illegal
monopoly for many years to come!!! This is patently absurd; anyone
who takes a little time to read this can point out, as I just have,
many, MANY holes in the judgement; it will force Microsoft to change
its ways in order to find new ways to do what it's always done, but
the basic pattern of behavior will not change. This is not justice,
it's ludicrous. There is no free market so long as these sorts of
abuses are allowed to occur, and without competition they will
continue to occur. The computer-hardware- market has
shown itself to be a hotbed of competition, and as a result, we have
gone, just a few years ago, from computers with 100 MHz processors
to ones 20 times faster in clock speeds along-Not to mention
the amazing advances in flat panel monitor and 3-D graphics
processing technology, realistic 3-D sound, enormous, ultra-fat hard
drives, and much more. Now, compare that to the operating systems
market. We have a lot of very intelligent peoppe working there as
well, and working hard. But on the freedom to innovate? Innovate
already, -please-!! I'd love to see that happen, but in
the same amount of time that I described, we've gone from Windows 95
to Windows ME and XP. They're somewhat more stable than 95, yes, not
to mention slower, requiring more processing power and resources to
do the exact same things we used to do on our old machines, now
obsolete in part due to the ridiculous idea that every
"feature" is a good one, even if that's not what the
user wants, and that sloppy, unoptimized code is OK because we'll
just patch it later, people will buy faster computers, and after
all, who -else- are you going to get your software
from?? This message was typed on a machine that runs Microsoft
Windows, and I'll hazard it will be received by a machine that runs
Microsoft Windows. If it's read at all, it will probably be read by
people who use Microsoft
[[Page 27009]]
Windows. And when those people go home from their jobs, they will
come home to computers that most likely run Microsoft Windows. And
the next computers they buy will -also- run Microsoft
Windows. And the next, and the next... This may not be true for 100%
of the population, but 90% is good enough for me, and this is the
real test-Look at Microsoft's market share. Will this
judgement have -any- impact on it? Or will Microsoft
remain a monopoly? Who will make the next piece of software
-you- buy? And how much money have you sent them
already? Does this bother you at all? Do you think it needs to
change? Do you think this judgement will really have the sort of
impact that's needed?
This isn't going to change anything; and in that respect,
Microsoft has clearly -won-. -
Daniel Schmidt
dfs [email protected]
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
MTC-00021339
From: Chris Brewer
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is guilty of anti-competitive tactics. The settlement
of these charges should result in a penalty to the guilty party.
Instead of allowing Microsoft to benefit from the proposed
settlement (increasing their market share in the one industry where
they aren't as competitive), why not penalize them? Force Microsoft
to purchase and distribute Apple Macintosh computers to schools.
That would have the double effect of penalizing their
anticompetitive practices, as well providing for a more competitive
environment.
Please do the right thing. We American people are counting on
you.
Chris Brewer
UNIX Systems Consultant
Rocky Mountain Broadband Solution Center
KPMG Consulting, Inc.
6399 S. Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 400
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Tel: 720-493-7992 Fax: 720-493-7498
Please send official business mail to
[email protected]
MTC-00021340
From: Steve Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Acceptance of the proposed settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft would
clear the road for the company to extend its monopoly to most if not
all aspects of computing. I don't think it changes anything for
Microsoft, it just lets them continue as they were before.
Steve Dale
MTC-00021341
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Microsoft settlement should hold. The free
enterprise system in the United State works!
Survival of the fittest!
MTC-00021342
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27am
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,
Audrey Swearengen
136 South Cortez Lane
Tustin, CA 92780-7455
MTC-00021343
From: Brian K. Vagts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the current settlement with Microsoft, which I feel
will do nothing to curb its de facto monopoly regarding many aspects
of computer software. The current settlement will do nothing to
protect the interests of the consumer, which has been steadly
erroded by Microsoft over the last decade or so, and stiffles
innovation in the market by the suppression of alternative software
providers.
Brian K. Vagts
MTC-00021344
From: Brent Johnson
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
Subject: I think Microsoft should be forced to share it's code with
the world so I think Microsoft should be forced to share it's code
with the world so others can build software that interacts with
Microsofts software. Please don't let them get by with a pat on the
wrist....
Thank you
Brent Johnson
MTC-00021345
From: Marian Pedersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
Subject: Stop all suits against Microsoft
Dear Sirs or Madames:
I am outraged by all the suits and claims against Microsoft. No
one has given them the credit they deserve. They have brought the
computer world to the highest level. All the others are just jealous
of their talent. I am proud of this great American Company and all
that they have done. You have bothered them long enough. Leave them
alone....
It shows all youth that they can start something in a garage or
basement and build it up to be a large company. Look at all the jobs
they have created. Look at all the help they have given
"users" of the computers....
I beg you to leave them alone....let them create-not fight
the government.
I heard that negotiations over the Microsoft antitrust suit are
at a critical pass. The Dept. of Justice is asking for public
comment.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; (WHY? They should have the credit...and it is
easier for the public to find the area....) 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.
"This is just another method for states to get free
money,and a terrible precedent for the future," states the
AOCTP, "not only in terms of computer technology, but all
sorts of innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever
seen." This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long
enough. We need to let the Department of Justice know how we feel
about the Microsoft Settlement.
Again, PLEASE let Microsoft get back to work making new computer
technology and innovations....LEAVE THEM ALONE......!!!!!
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, the period for public comment ends
January 28, 2002.
Please advise me on your decision.
Sincerely,
Marian Pedersen
[email protected]
MTC-00021346
From: M Cowperthwaite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Comments on the proposed Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my vexation with the proposed settlement
of the antitrust case against Microsoft.
It strikes me as indefensible that the Department of Justice,
having successfully found Microsoft guilty of illegally wielding and
bolstering their monopoly status, is willing to allow the company to
simply agree to minor behavioral restrictions. While I have long
thought a structural remedy would be best, I appreciate the
arguments against and accept that such remedy may well be
unworkable. Therefore, given the need for a behavioral remedy, I
believe the following measures, at minimum, would be appropriate:
1) A substantial fine. While I claim no expertise on setting
fine valuations, I suggest 33% of Microsoft's gross profits for the
years 1994-2000 inclusive.
2) A complete vacation of agreements with PC vendors which
specify any control at all by Microsoft on the presentation of the
Windows desktop, and the prohibition of any further such agreements.
[[Page 27010]]
3)The enforced publication (opening) of the file formats used by
the Microsoft Office suite.
These measures would be above and beyond those specified in the
proposal, altho those measures need some adjustment on their own.
For instance, the language in section III(J)(2) and III(D) specify
that the APIs and protocols need to be disclosed only to businesses;
in some cases, specific businesses. This is nonsense: the
information needs to be published, openly, for use by any and all
interested parties-including, it should be noted, government,
non-profit and open-source and free-software concerns.
I call upon the arbiters of the proposed settlement to reject
and demand the Department of Justice make a new proposal which will
actually impose punishment on Microsoft. The company will not fail
because of it, and with sufficient restraints on its overweening
power, perhaps other companies will have a chance to actually put a
product into the market without having it crushed by the behemoth.
Thank you for your attention.
Michael Cowperthwaite
4960 Highcrest Dr
Deephaven, MN 55331
[email protected]
MTC-00021347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise.
This antitrust case needs to end now. I also believe that our
economy is in the shape that is in now because of this case. If we
don t settle this case now our economy is going to get worse because
the market does not like any kind of uncertainty. I also believe
that Microsoft did not really do anything wrong. It s being punished
for being a really good company and having good products. This
antitrust case was not about protecting the consumers as it should
have been. It was all about protecting Microsoft s competitors! This
is not what our government should be doing!
MTC-00021348
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I ll see what I can fit in this tiny little comment area. The
gist is that the government should stay out of how companies do
business and let the markets take care of bad business practices. If
a company makes an operating system and an office suite good for
them also good luck to them. as an it professional it is MY decision
wether to use those products or not not the governments. My biggest
beef is all the tax money it took to pay for the case(s) as well as
the Microsoft money that it took which eventually comes out of the
pocket of every Microsoft customer. Govt regulation leads to
Socialism which in every nation in history doesn t work!
MTC-00021349
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
End the case against microsoft. MS has done more than any corp
should to propitulate to the DOJ. This case is nothing more than
welfare for Netscape. DP
MTC-00021350
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft s methods of gaining dominance in the computer
industry have caused signifigant distress to the general business
community in the US and the rest of the world. They have supressed
free trade and creative opportunity with sub standard products that
have become forced standards.
MTC-00021351
From: Marvin Floyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please discontinue your long-standing, financially draining
efforts to punish Microsoft for their successful products. It is
time to move on and let those companies that couldn't compete with
them to either come up with better products that can compete or
change product lines. This is capitalism, pure and simple. Let good
products flourish and the bad ones fade away.
MDF
Marvin D. Floyd
Global Process Manager
Qwest Information Technologies, Inc.
Phone: 303.896.7420 FAX 303.896.7825
Pager: 303.230.1951
E-Mail: [email protected]
"Whether you be man or woman you will never do anything in
this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind
next to honor." -James L. Allen
MTC-00021352
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement with Microsoft was a fair settlement.
As an educator working with technology I endorse the settlement
MTC-00021353
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Federal Government should AGREE to the settlement
with Microsoft and bring this case to an end. This would help
America heal.
MTC-00021354
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
TO: DOJ Government Officials
This latest lawsuit by AOL against Microsoft is such a sham, and
should be thrown out immediately ....... it appears that AOL is
probably just trying to recoup their initial purchase of Netscape
(which I think was a mistake in the first place).
Microsoft continues to do more for the software world (both for
PC and MAC) than any other company in the world. Try to imagine
where we would be in computer technology today if it hadn't been for
Microsoft ......... clearly the Apple Corp (MAC) hasn't made the
giant-steps that have brought us to our highly technical
position-only Microsoft.
I currently have AOL as my ISP (Internet Service Provider), but
after this new lawsuit was filed I can no longer continue using
them, and will get another ISP within the month. AOL may be the
largest ISP, but their level of service continues to deteriorate and
there is very lousy customer support or attempts to speed things up.
I'm sure the current Administration has some very conservative
opinions about this lawsuit, and it should be dismissed !!
sincerely, John Darr
MTC-00021355
From: Nowakowski, Steve
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe you must allow the current settlement proposed for the
Microsoft antitrust case.
Microsoft has shown itself to be a ruthless predator in the
industry. They unfairly used their operating system monopoly
(acquired by taking advantage of IBM) to force other companies out
of application businesses. The reason office became a leader was due
to bundling the application with every copy of Windows sold. A clear
example of trying to force competitors out of business is Netscape
but there are many smaller examples. Now Microsoft is trying force
themselves into other platforms, such as the handheld computer
industry, via their monopoly position on the desktop. In the case of
both Netscape and Palm, an established leader in their space was
threatened by Microsoft leveraging their monopoly on the desktop.
The whole computer industry suffers from this monopoly because
it stifles competition and stops diversity in the industry.
Consequently, the operating systems do not move forward and we do
not get creative and new applications.
The alternative settlement proposed by the nine dissenting
states is a much better remedy to this problem.
Thank you for your time.
Steve Nowakowski
Development Engineer
[email protected]
507.529.7017
MTC-00021356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First of all I am disgusted that the United States Government
would seek to persue this case in the first place. Secondly I feel
that if the settlement is acceptable to Microsoft then accept it and
don t bother screwing around with a company that has done more to
create jobs in this country and decent paying ones at that then the
government could ever afford to do or have the intelligence to do.
By the
[[Page 27011]]
way what is the price difference between what was spent going after
Microsoft vs what was spent going after terrorists?
MTC-00021357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion Microsoft has not only utilized their competitive
advantage over other competition due to their monopoly with their
operating system but has also overcharged the general public for
their products and continue to strong arm the competition.
MTC-00021358
From: shannon Gamba-Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How long is DOJ going to continue to allow these ridiculous
lawsuits to go on? When will you say..."this is America, get
over it and learn to get along with competition". What does
all this litigation do for the people should be the deciding factor.
The answer is, nothing. Therefore it is a waste of investor assets,
and time and energy that could be spent on mutually beneficial ways
to benefit both the companies and the public. The DOJ is acting like
the operators of a cock-fight ring. You are condoning and operating
the business of unnecessary fighting between these 2 companies. Put
a stop to it and let both of them get back to the business that they
are supposed to be in! Thank-you
MTC-00021359
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the goverment should stay out of the technical
development area. Technology does not need to restrained in order
for the States to maintain leadership in this arena. I think
Microsoft got a bad rapt.
There is no other company at the present time that can develope
the technology and get it to market like Microsoft. This is not to
say that other software companies can t if they would just focus on
development and forget the competetion. All involved have spent to
much on the legal proceedings that should never have been
iniatiated.
MTC-00021360
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle on terms proposed by Justice. Delay paralysis an
innovative company and creates uncertainty in the market place.
MTC-00021361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
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,
Joseph Calitri
238 North Elm Street
West Bridgewater, MA 02379-1443
MTC-00021362
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone!The have contributed too our great economy
and we need more companies like them. If big business is stifled
small business is hurt and people lose jobs and no income and no
taxes!
MTC-00021363
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To quote Mat Szulik-Microsoft s illegal anti-competitive
practices have seriously warped the technology industry stifling
innovation to the detriment of the technology industry and to
society as a whole.
MTC-00021364
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31am
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,
Ross Moyer
1427 Baldwin Ct.
Little River, SC 29566-8268
MTC-00021365
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31am
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,
Joan Moerke
30336-150th. Ave.
Ashby, MN 56309
MTC-00021366
From: Darrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is atrocious to allow a company such as Microsoft to
allow them to business as usual. There products are inferior yet
they have a superior marketing department. I think at the very least
if they are allowed to continue to sell their bug laden, tripe they
should at least hold some accountability for it. Microsoft has made
its insecure junk software so much of an influence strictly by its
politics and public relations. It definitely isn't do to the
superiority of there products. If I produced and sold you a car and
told you up front that it leaked water, wouldn't drive on bumpy
roads and would only run for 2 hours at a time before needing to be
jump started, would you still buy those cars? On top of that say a
clause in the purchase contract was that you could never repaint the
car because they were painted with advertisements for people who had
paid the manufacturer to put them there. Would you still buy that
car at a premium price. On top of THAT per the contract you didn't
own the car you were purchasing but in fact the Manufacturer
retained ownership and would just let you drive it as long as you
never repainted it or let any one else drive it and agreed to hold
the manufacture harmless in whatever ill driving the car brought
you!
I think it is obvious to most who have watched this that there
are some behind the scenes politicking going on with this case, and
I think its a damn shame! Hitler said it best:
What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.
-Adolph Hitler, In Politics/Nazism
CC:Darrell
[[Page 27012]]
MTC-00021367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement e need to put an end to this
litigation against Microsoft. The settlement is fair. We do not want
any more uncertainty and regulation.
MTC-00021368
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time for the US economy to get back on top. Part of that
process is to stop diverting resources to a lawsuit against a
company that epitomizes our way of life. Microsoft needs to get back
to concentrating on its goods and services and the Justice
Department and the several states Attorneys General need to find
some other cause celebre. They ve milked this one about as much as
they can. In this country the weaker competitor loses because they
have inferior products NOT necessarily because they have been
unfairly and illegally thwarted in the marketplace. It s time for
the whiners like AOL Sun Netscape et al to stand up compete like
Americans and stand on their own merits rather than on the strength
of their lawyers. Enough is enough. Let s get on with it already.
Settle this damnable lawsuit and get the US back on it s economic
footing. The untold economic damage caused by this whole fiasco
probably can never be recoverd at this point. Tell the states not
agreeing to settle to shut up and go home.
MTC-00021369
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
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,
Martin Hampton
1983 Arkell Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
MTC-00021370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A good critique of the agreement can be found at http://
davenet.userland.com/2001/11/02/theMicrosoftSettlement. Please read
this in preparation for your deliberations. It disturbs me that many
of the Attorneys General (AG s)have not gotten on board with the
settlement. While I don t wish to see the case dragged out Microsoft
will not voluntarily submit to cessation of marketing practices that
have brought this issue. Those AG s who hold the most radical views
on either end of the spectrum should be weeded out leaving a
moderate core the majority of whom should agree on the settlement.
Microsoft cannot be forced to divest itself of Software it has
created based on its own research and development. Sufficient remedy
seems to be available to those who brought the suit in that bundled
middleware (Internet Explorer media players etc.) will be replacable
at the end user s discretion. This solution doesn t force Microsoft
to break its code (a specious argument from my viewpoint as a
developer) and allows the consumer to choose a different provider.
Microsoft should not be allowed to provide the Windows operating
system to the educational community. Their thinly veiled offer gives
them inroads into another market segment for which they lust. They
should donate hardware and the schools should have the choice of
operating system (Red Hat has offered software and support). Thank
you for allowing me to express my opinion.
MTC-00021371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
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,
Gladstone Nordstrom
1760 Denkinger Rd.
Concord, CA 94521-1153
MTC-00021372
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
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,
Doyle Pace
1813 Indian School rd.
Garland, TX 75044
MTC-00021373
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let s cease this litigation against Microsoft which has
contributed greatly to our technological progress and
MTC-00021374
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should be nailed to the wall! Judge Jackson s decision
to split the company in two was correct 100%. Microsoft is out of
control.
MTC-00021375
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I belive that settlement is a fair and good compromise and is
the best intrest of everyone -tech. industry economy and consumers.
Microsoft has a lot of good products and other companys can t come
up with better one thats why they looking for goverment help.
MTC-00021376
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave them alone the Government has enough to do besides trying
to keep Bill Gates from making money.
MTC-00021377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor: I have read the judgement and find that our federal
government is again extending its reach beyond the bounds which
constitutional authority allows. All federal jurisdictions are
determined by the foundation of federal law which is the
constitution. Legislation which is not founded on this base of
authority is illegal in nature and illegitimate in its foundations.
[[Page 27013]]
The free market has it s own corrective actions for companies which
attempt to monopolize any particular sector. The rail system was
first attacked by the federal government and then became the
protectorate of the federal government.
Many of the attempts of the federal government to legislate
fairness in the market place have done just the reverse. The
monopoly laws in the rail industry actually began to support the
existing rail companies and inhibit the free market. The result is a
rail system that comes in last place in the industrialized world.
Federal mandates in the automotive industry have made impossible
the entrance of new automotive startups to compete with existing
manufactures thus enforcing existing monopolies. Only companies
unencumbered by our federal mandates were able to enter the
automotive industry via more friendly free market environments on
foreign soil. Without foreign competition the American automotive
sector would be little improved from the technology that was in
place 30+ years ago when the Japanese first gained entrance to our
market with the low cost fuel efficient subcompact cars. As a
resident of the state of North Carolina the place of my birth I do
not share in my states plaintiff position nor do I expect that
illegitimate jurisdiction of the federal government in the free
marke
MTC-00021378
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is clearly in the best interests of consumers.
No one is served and no purpose furthered by continued litigation.
Accept the settlement!
MTC-00021379
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I like the Microsoft products as they are. Life is much simpler
with software that integrates together.
MTC-00021381
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30am
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,
Cheryl Elias
11159 Morrison St. #8
North Hollywood, CA 91601
MTC-00021382
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement reached between Microsoft and the
Federal Government is fair and reasonable and any further action is
a waste of tax payers money and time.
MTC-00021383
From: K. S. Griffiths
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I feel the Deptartment of Justice's proposed settlement is not a
very good idea. It does nothing to truly remedy the stranglehold
Microsoft has on the software industry.
Karl S. Griffiths
Microcomputer Technician
Edwardsville Illinois
MTC-00021384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let s cease this litigation against Microsoft which has
contributed greatly to our technological progress and balance of
payments internationally. The attorneys general of the states really
lack accountability in their pursuit of further litigation and their
activities should cease.
MTC-00021385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I thank the government should mind there own business and let
businesses make as much money as possible if thay are capable.
MTC-00021386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has always given the public Fair prices on all their
products and has enhanced all our lives for many years and has given
our country the priceless gift of ingenuity enterprize and the most
important is INNOVATION.Please settle this so Microsoft can get on
with their important job of Innovation and fair service to the
country and the people that their products serve.
MTC-00021387
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ has no business interfering in the free market system.
Microsoft has not broken any laws. They have not taken away anyone s
choice regarding which software products thet can use or buy. This
suit is a waste of taxpayer s money and I am angry as a taxpayer and
also as one who looks forward to building my own business as big as
the free market system will let it grow.
MTC-00021388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The recent decision is unduly harsh for the company s action.
The original proposal by Microsoft sees more than fair.
MTC-00021389
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The latest attempt by Microsoft to circumvent a federal judge s
order makes me as uncomfortable as if I was sitting in a Naugahyde
chair in shorts on a hot day. Microsoft needs to wake up and smell
the competitive market.
MTC-00021390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is encouraged the negoiated settlemnt be imposed on the
dissenting nine states. It seems to me Microsoft has been subjected
to far more than the necessary legal actions-it appears as if
they are being persecuted for being successful. Their competitors
seemingly want the Government to help them be compaetitive by
attacking Microsoft.
MTC-00021391
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the current ruling is fair to everyone. i strongly recommend its
acceptance.
MTC-00021392
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We strongly support the proposed settlement agreement with
Microsoft. This case has damaged the American economy and continues
to do so as long as it isn t settled. Now is the time to come to
agreement and start rebuilding the financial markets.
MTC-00021393
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After exhaustive research and testimony from both sides a fair
and resonable decision was reached. It s time for the government to
move on to other important issues.
MTC-00021394
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case aganst Microsoft cost me a job and soured the entire
industry. I believe that
[[Page 27014]]
it is in the United States of America s best intrest as well as the
worlds for this case to be ended quickly an reasonably.
MTC-00021395
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31am
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 Sturtz
37240 39th AVE S
Auburn, WA 98001-8727
MTC-00021396
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have to side with Microsoft. Tandy used to sell prepackaged
software (Deskmate). How many others have had packaged software ?
You get a successful business that produces a product that sells and
the competition gets jealous. Thats all it is. Microsoft products
are innovative state of the art competitively priced offer Internet
based upgrades etc. If more software companies would spend as much
time working on their products rather than time and money
complaining about the competition maybe they would hold a better
place in the market. As far as government intervention I think it is
an American shame that politicians want to tell someone what they
can and can t do when that company is a legal business that offers
an Operating System that is easy to use for all ages. My mother just
started using her first P/C on mother s day of 2001. She has the
Windows O/S. She is 73 years old. She is on the Internet as well.
Thanks to Microsoft she is living her elder years without
boredom because of a product she can work with so easily. I could go
on and on but as for me I praise Gates and his crew for what they
have accomplished.
MTC-00021397
From: Warrick, Brad
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
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.
I personally use the Netscape browser for most of my internet
applications, so this really is just a grudge match or witch hunt,
and needs to brought to an end.
"This is just another method for states to get free money,
and a terrible precedent for the future," states the AOCTP,
"not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever
seen."
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
We need to let the Department of Justice know how we feel about the
Microsoft Settlement.
Sincerely,
Brad Warrick & Family
3095 Murray Lane
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
MTC-00021398
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding Microsoft. The monopolistic persuits of the company
need to be stopped. I fully favor disceting the company into smaller
less harmfull units. Exploiting consumers and ever increasing the
areas of control are a pattern onf business by a company lacking
self control. Settling the case with merely monitary fines is not
solving the true problem. Sincerely Alex Jegottka
MTC-00021399
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Beating up on Microsoft does not help innovation it only helps
the companies that want an unfair advantage a government regulated
one. The governments state and federal and the courts need to move
on so that Microsoft can continue with their success of
singlehandedly building the technology revolution that is propelling
our productivity in this country and abroad...
MTC-00021400
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ has at last worked out a reasonable settlement. Please
settle this years long pursuit of one of our nation s greatest
success stories. California and other dissenting states should
accept the settlement for the good of the consumer and the taxpayer.
MTC-00021401
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The antitrust case against Microsoft should be ended. In fact it
is my opinion that a case should never have started. Microsoft has
produced excellent products which have resulted in the company
taking the lead in software. As for bundleing products other
companies do that also. Close the case and let everyone make
progress on new and better software.
MTC-00021402
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31am
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,
Larry McKinley
851 Baltimore Place
MARIETTA, GA 30064-3960
MTC-00021403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The US vs Microsoft settlement agreed to on Nov. 3 2001 by the
Federal Goverment and a number of State Attorneys General is in the
best interest of each and every local citizen that owns a computer
and any other technology that uses Microsoft Software. Attorney
General Miller of Iowa does not speak for us because our experience
is that Microsoft serves us very well and at a reasonable price. We
want Microsoft and all of the Technology Companies to be free to be
creative inovate and develop according to their abilities. We want a
free and open system.
MTC-00021404
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is no longer a fair trail for wrong doing. This has become
a political financial war of power and greed. Microsoft is being
unfairly accused and blamed instead of praised and honored for the
advancement in all our lives all over the world. Our children need
Microsoft for leadership.
Thankyou
MTC-00021405
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27015]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31am
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,
David Showen
115 East Main St.
Mount Horeb, WI 53572
MTC-00021406
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough! It is time to move on. No one has been more
open and forthcoming during all of this inquiry than has been Bill
Gates and Microsoft. The Justice Department has finished its work
and no evidence of predatory pricinig or marketing was brought
forward. The public has been served. And now that same Justice
Department has much more serious and real problems to address. The
American public and the technology industry can now best be served
by moving on.
MTC-00021407
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is about time! This trail should have never even started.
Time to look forward to bigger and better software packages. To
think Bill was tried for building a better mouse trap! -)
MTC-00021408
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to move on. Let Microsoft abide by the settlement
reached in the antitrust case. I believe that this settlement is in
the public interest and further litigation is not neccessary.
MTC-00021409
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MICROSOFT HAS CREATED A WIDE WORLD OF COMMUNICATION AT A LOW
COST AND BROUGHT EVERYONE ON THE NET INTO PROXIMITY USING THE SAME
LANGUAGE AND ABLE TO COMMUNICATE- MUCH LIKE THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF
AMERICA-ENGLISH. THE PERSECUTION OF THEM IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ANTI
TRUST LAWS ASKEW LETTING COMPETITORS BITCH ABOUT ANOTHERS SUCCESS
THE FED S ACTION WOULD BE MORE ENCOURAGING TO THE ECONOMY BY GETTING
LAWYERS OUT OF THE ACT.
LET COMPETITION REIGN
MTC-00021410
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have followed the Microsoft case closely. I have used both
Microsoft s and its competitor's products. I do not feel that
Microsoft has forced me to use their products. I can and am able to
chose another if I want. American freedom means that I can chose
what I want to use. I do not need the government to level the
playing field for me. Just because one company s products are more
successful than another's taxpayer s money should not be used to
prop up the less successful company. Let all who wants to play in
the marketplace go out and take a chance. America s government of
the people by the people for the people should not punish an
American success story. Don t politicans and regulators have better
and more important things to do??
MTC-00021411
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with settlement. I believe that the Government should
get off Microsofts Back. There should not have been a case in the
first place.
MTC-00021412
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I feel the settlement reached with Microsoft is just and should
proceed to closure.
The AOL Netscape is nothing but a last ditch chance to promote
Netscape. Without the Microsoft systems I would not be writing this
as when all the things I like were installed on my computer
everything interfaced and worked.
Thanks Microsoft.
Jack Lyman
MTC-00021413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31am
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,
Barton Hartzell
836 2nd Ave.,#302
Kirkland, WA 98033-3927
MTC-00021414
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have never thought that the Anti-Trust case would improve
thigs for the consumer. Thus I was pleased with the settlement that
would benefit everyone. The Attorneys General are making a lot of
noise to benefit their own political careers. Their objections are
not realistic and in many cases do not properly apply to the case. I
do not have the time to go into great detail but I am pleading for
the litigation to end and for the settlement to be accepted.
MTC-00021415
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Unlike Americans for Technology Leadership I believe that this
settlement is not tough not fair and not reasonable compromise and
is not in the best interest of everyone-the technology
industry the economy and especially consumers. Unlike some industry
leaders some politicians some economists and some newspaper
editorials I do not endorse this settlement. I believe that
Microsoft using its monapoly power exercising FUD illegal dumping
intimidating and other mean methods to crush competition hurt
innovation the IT industry the economy and especially consumers. I
believe that support of such kind of monapoly as Microsoft is
immoral. This is my strong opinion.
MTC-00021416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TechLeaderShip.ORG is definitely a Microsoft Company trying to
gain the support of people who have no clue what-so-ever about the
actual issues with MS vs. US. While I do agree to some degree with
limiting the control of the gov t when it comes to the internet and
advancement in technology. This issue that the gov t is pushing and
trying to resolve is a valid pursuit. I remember the many stupid e-
mails I received from Microsoft. Microsoft Propaganda that told lies
about its actual capabilities. Much like
[[Page 27016]]
this techleadership postcard I got and the phone call that followed
suit. Brainwashing people who haven t a clue that the gov t is
wasting tax payer money when this was all a calculated risk by
Microsoft. So who was really responsible for wasting tax payer
money? While I admit MS has a right to grow its business to the
limits but what they are doing is anti competive and will stagger
and has staggered the growth of technology. MS has not had made any
advancement in the OS industry. DOS which is a product they never
made is still the most stable OS they ever sold. MS-masters in
marketing. Nothing else . GO U.S.A.!!! Go U.S.A.!!!
MTC-00021417
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft may be have the lions share of the market but they
have acheived this without trying to invoke any undue pressure on
their customers to purchase their products. It should also be noted
that despite their advantage in the market place they have continued
to innovate and improve their products responding to the consumers
needs while maintaining very fair and competitive pricing. It is un
American and contrary to the core principle of free enterprise to
penalize any company for achieving success. Rather the government
should encourage innovation through tax credits and encourage
smaller companies to achieve leadership status in their respective
fields. A comprehensive settlement has been reached and it is time
for our nation to look toward solving our economic problems rather
than continuing this costly suit against one of our country s most
successful companies.
MTC-00021418
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the court to accept the offer made by Micrsoft and close
this case.The offer is sincere.honest and fair to all concerned.
MTC-00021419
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Once Again the Greedy Business world has devised a way for the
consumer to have to pay for someone else s problem. We are just fine
living alone when someone (SUN Netscape Intel) doesn t get enough of
our money and decides to shut down other company s cash cow. Well
guess what the consumer will pay for all of this litigation and
compliance to a certain extent this affair compares with taxation
without representation . Get over it everyone put an end to this
mess and don t cost the taxpaying consumer anymore money than you
have already done. Most people still don t realize that software and
information technology runs the world along the same commodity lines
as crude oil being the only energy source in the world. Without good
cheap and innovative software at a reasonable price there would be
no quality of life or standard of living. Know it looks like that
will cost the consumers again. Everyone gets rich but the consumer.
MTC-00021420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hmmm..AOL suing Microsoft? Why doesn t someone take a strong
hard look at AOL? With the way AOL is buying corporations up Cable
networks broadcast networks software companies (Netscape and
attempting to buy Red Hat) plus if I m not mistaken and newspaper.
Shouldn t AOL be under a microscope? It is becoming readily apparent
that these past few years have been a Microsoft Witch Hunt nothing
more nothing less. Toss this whole case out and let s get back to
running the country rather than ruining the country throught the
desimation of the software sector.
MTC-00021421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
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,
Mick Schlegel
457 Coldstream Drive
Berwyn, PA 19312-1113
MTC-00021422
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
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 GOODWIN
111 DAY AVE.
EAST LONGMEADOW, MA 01028
MTC-00021423
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having been involved with computers education business for 40
years the continuous complaint was there was no common platform and
no common operating system . No computer could talk to another
computer. We now have a common platform the PC and internet we now
have a common operating system Windows. The COMMON MAN can click on
windows like he or she operates a toaster knowing things will work .
There is no way for it to be free someone has to pay for it. And
someone makes a profit. There are millions of programs that can be
programmed and a profit made from because of Windows. The only
problem is that several BUSINESSES want their operating system to be
the default . When that happens are they going to be sued? This is
all just sour grapes. Get rid of the lawsuit let the world get on
with things using the common platform of the PC and the common
operating system Windows.
MTC-00021424
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawsuits should never have been initiated against Microsoft in
the first place.Please drop any further litigation against
Microsoft.
MTC-00021425
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
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,
Richard Thatcher
[[Page 27017]]
8421 Heil Ave.
Westminster, CA 92683-7800
MTC-00021426
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the decision to end the case against
Microsoft.
MTC-00021427
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I THINK THE WHOLE LAWSUIT IS ABSURD. IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY
NUMEROUS CRY BABIES OF WHICH I USED TO OWN STOCK IN AND HAVE SINCE
SOLD. IF YOU WANT TO STUDY REAL MONOPOLIES TRY THE COUNTRY OF CHINA
EXPORTING TO OUR COUNTRY. LOOK AT BEIJING ELECTRIC. THEY MANUFACTURE
VIRTUALLY ALL PARTS OR COMPLETE UNITS TO EXPORT TO THE US. THEY USE
SLAVE LABOR TO UNDERCUT A GOOD AMERICAN COMPANY LIKE BALDOR
ELECTRIC. MICROSOFT ON THE OTHER HAND MAKES GREAT PRODUCTS AND PAYS
THERE PEOPLE VERY WELL. WASHINGTON GET YOUR PRIORITES STRAIGHT FOCUS
ON THE REAL CRIMES AND MAYBE THROW THE CRY BABIES FROM SUN MICRO AND
THE SO CALLED AFFECTED STATES A BIGGER TOWEL. I ALSO KNOW A
PROFESSIONAL VIOLINIST.
MTC-00021428
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has historically ranted until they got their way. They
should open up thier technology like others in the industry have to
encourage competition but at the same time encouraging a community
of equals on and EQUAL PLAYING FIELD. Their proposal to donate
software and or hardware is hogwash. After the first few copies of a
program are sold the rest is pure profit. Microsoft and Bill Gates
should learn to give back through concessions and teamwork outside
their company. When a standard is established their should be one
standard regardless who creates it not a Microsoft version and the
everyone elses as in the JAVA language.
MTC-00021430
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
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,
Colleen Rocha
5851 Mt. Vernon Drive
Alexandria, VA 22303
MTC-00021431
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i am pro microsoft thanks
MTC-00021432
From: William Bethel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36am
Subject: Witch Hunt
Lets stop the Microsoft witch hunt. This has gone on long
enough. Lets get on with with life.
William Bethel
231 Wedgewood Ln.
Conway, SC 29526
MTC-00021433
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although not ideal we support the settlement as a timely end to
disruption and uncertainty. Microsoft has done the world an enormous
service in establishing a universally accessable environment for
computing.
MTC-00021434
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the MICROSOFT settlement stand.
MTC-00021435
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
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,
Frank Solis
209 Westwood Ct
Woodbury, NJ 08096-3134
MTC-00021436
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don t understand all the legalities of the issue but I feel
that Microsoft is the leader in technology and if the other
companies can t keep up why punish the user base by making it
difficult for Microsoft to move on.
MTC-00021437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not in favor of the current Microsoft anti-trust
settlement. I think Microsoft got off too easy. Considering
Microsoft s reach and power given its tremendous wealth the company
never admits fault. If the company had admitted some responsibility
for its actions in trying to create a monolopy climate for browers
and related products. As I stated earlier Microsoft did financial
punish those who spoke out against the company or supported
platforms using other browers. I think Microsoft should be forced to
go back to court or work out a settlement that definitely prevents
similar actions in the future backed up by really stiff penalties or
fines.
MTC-00021438
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice is on a witch hunt with Microsoft. We use
Microsoft products in our office. It has saved us hundreds of hours
in our office. We feel that we paid a reasonble price for the
products. The DOJ must stop protecting Microsoft competitors. The
consumer is the only one that counts.
MTC-00021439
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
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
[[Page 27018]]
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,
Lee Bodenhamer, III
9413 Dawnshire Road
Raleigh, NC 27615-4096
MTC-00021440
From: Edward Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft
I don't agree. Microsoft Corporation is a convicted corporate
criminal and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Edward J. Walker, President
E. J. Walker Systems, Inc.
Ossininmg, NY
MTC-00021441
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since I never thought the case had any merit to begin with I
welcome an end to it. It has always been about whiner company ceos
and state attorney generals who oculdn t achieve their selfish ends
in the market and instead chose the tyrannical powers of the state
to suport them. Those people are the real criminals deserving of
prosecution not Microsoft. If the Bush Administration really
believed the rhetoric they spout on the campaign trail about freedom
and markets they would have dismissed this whole bogus case on day
one. Instead they opt for this settlement that continues to penalize
Microsoft unfairly.
MTC-00021443
From: Jeff Leinwand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As the legal actions continue to pile up against Microsoft it
becomes clear that Microsoft's competitors seek to gain competitive
advantage by putting "legal" restraints on Microsoft. It
seems amazing that they can be in court for undercutting in one
case, while defending themselves for overcharging at the same time
on another case. Had Netscape (now AOL Time Warner) bothered to
upgrade its 16 bit browser to a 32 bit browser when the user
community switched over to 32 bit operating systems, maybe they
would have stayed ahead of Microsoft. There are choices; we don't
have to buy MS products. Apple, Linux, and other UNIX systems are
there competing. If one looks objectively at where prices are today,
it is obvious that they have dropped dramatically. Windows XP does
more today then the mainframe systems of the "80. Many
businesses could not afford those systems which were leased for
thousands a month. Today the same features are available for under
$300, and you own it. Home users don't have an IT Staff to handle
the operating system as was needed on the mainframe operating
systems. The point is, there has been a lowering of the cost of
software, hardware, and software development due to the innovation
of Microsoft. It is no coincidence that the economy downturn started
with this action against Microsoft. What we are doing as a Nation is
penalizing a company for being successful, and rewarding those who
are unable to compete because they didn't have the vision (certainly
AOL has the funds to compete). This action puts our whole software
industry at risk if we further shackle one of our main technology
drivers. It is interesting to note that it is not the consumer who
is complaining, rather Microsoft's competitors and a group of
lawyers claiming to represent consumers who once again are after a
large settlement fee. It is time to put a stop to this and let us
get back to work on driving the economy rather than throwing
America's software technology dominance away.
Jeff Leinwand
home: (520) 749-9279
cell: (520) 907-6791
fax: (520) 749-9336
MTC-00021444
From: Fred Talmadge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is important to break up Microsoft and to separate
the commercial software and operating systems into two separate
companies. When I started using computers DOS was the operating
system of choice. We had several flavors of DOS including
Microsoft's all a little different some better, some worse. We could
then add-on to DOS with file managers and utilities in effect making
the computer a truly "personal" computer. Today that is
not as easy. Not only is the browser imbedded into the operating
system, but email, media players, file managers and system
utilities. Even the way my directories are arranged are controlled
by Microsoft, "My Documents", "My Pictures"
etc all interfere with the way I want to organize my files. I
believe that having an operating system that is stripped down to
it's basic functions and then embellished as the "user"
sees fit from whoever they wish to do business with is the only way
that we can have a personal computer in it's truest since.
Thank-you
Fred Talmadge
Bellville, TX
http://www.96trees.com
MTC-00021445
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
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,
Russell Knouse
6426 Ridge Circle Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78233-3908
MTC-00021446
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I ve worked with M.S. products since DOS 2.2 and have been the
I.S. director for an engineering firm in Toledo Ohio for a number of
years. Based on my experiences with M.S. I have no doubt they have
consistently worked to stifle and destroy their competitors where
ever they can. I firmly believe they will attempt to continue to do
so by any means they can. I DO NOT feel the proposed settlement goes
far enough and amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist! If
this settlement goes through as currently proposed MicroSoft will
continue to work to maintain its illicitly gained dominance and
further erode competion and innovation in the software marketplace.
MTC-00021447
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:32am
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,
Ardy Mattox
PO Box 752
Gilchrist, OR 97737-0752
MTC-00021448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27019]]
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,
Debra Shaffer
532 Turkey Lane
Fountain Inn, SC 29644
MTC-00021449
From: Ralph Hudson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:35am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
Please GET OFF Microsoft's back. Settle the case and leave them
alone.
Ralph Hudson
5174 Apple Road
Springdale AR 72762
(479) 750-3488
[email protected]
MTC-00021450
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:37am
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,
Shirley Staton
8200 W. 61st Street
Shawnee Mission, KS 66202
MTC-00021451
From: Daniel Seltzer
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is misguided and does not
adequately address the biggest problem: Microsoft's abusive business
practices. As a repeat offender in this regard, an appropriate
solution would be to put in place a watchdog group with
representatives from across the industry, to meet regularly and
report to the DOJ on Microsoft's behavior. Failure to meet the
guidelines of the group should result in additional, progressive
fines. Microsoft is just not going to change their behavior if
treated lightly or inexpensively.
MTC-00021452
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
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,
Howard & Joan Howard & Joan
P. O. Box 722
Lot 71, Cliffside Drive, Timberlake Ran
Ramah, NM 87321
MTC-00021453
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36am
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,
Karen Zapolski
1103 Kenesaw SE
E. Grand Rapids, MI 49506-3518
MTC-00021454
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34am
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,
Denise Quartararo
P.O.Box 238
Manorville, NY 11949
MTC-00021455
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:37am
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,
John McNaugher
9904 Belton Circle
Wexford, PA 15090-9686
MTC-00021456
From: Charles Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The settlement of the Microsoft case with the DOJ is in the
public interest. Let them alone. They are the biggest because they
are the best.
C.P. Crawford
MTC-00021457
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36am
[[Page 27020]]
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,
bill & jean Vogel
17212 Orrville Rd
Chesterfield, MO 63005-6302
MTC-00021458
From: Jamie Soltys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea and does nothing to
effectively stop the monopolistic actions of Microsoft.
Concisely yours,
James Soltys
p.s. I am unaware of what proof you require in regards to my
U.S. citizenship. Please contact me with any request for address,
social security number, etc.
MTC-00021459
From: Glenn Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
maybe microsoft should file suit agains aol for costs of
supporting aol's software issues...
MTC-00021460
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:37am
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,
NC 28607
MTC-00021461
From: Andrew Lundgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that this settlement is far too weak to prevent MS from
continuing its business practices.
Amdrew Lundgren
5201 E 118th ave
thornton co 80233
MTC-00021462
From: Kris Courter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
I have to say, I'm utterly displeased witht his proposed
settlement. I work in the IT industry and see many good products
stifled and consequently smashed due to Microsoft's anticompetitive
behavior. It's one thing to be on top because your products are top
notch. It's another to produce mediocre products, squash the
competition through slander, libel, and purposeful incompatibilities
between MS and third party vendors. Recently, Novell sued Microsoft
for spouting lies about Novell dropping support and development for
NetWare and saying they should jump ship to Microsoft intstead.
Microsoft has repeatedly broken antitrust law and needs to be
punished accordingly. I find the "school settlement"
horrible. Giving software to these schools costs Microsoft virtually
nothing, yet you use the street value as a factor in the fine.
Maybe they should be broken up. AT&T was broken up several
times, sometimes involuntarily and other times voluntarily, and it's
doing just fine. At any rate, something more extreme needs to be
done other than this slap on the wrist and saying "Bad
Microsoft. Don't do it again."
Perhaps if Microsoft is forced to be competitive, we can get
better products from them, and other alternatives such as Linux can
flourish. Protecting Microsoft's monopoly with this settlement will
not do the public any good, and only further hamper competition in
the IT marketplace.
Sincerely,
Kris Courter, CNE NW 5.1
Onsite Support
Alpine School District
MTC-00021463
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:38am
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,
Roland Lambert
600 S. Wyandotte St.
Grove, OK 74344
MTC-00021464
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:38am
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,
Louis C. Berry
1785 Klatt Dr.
Carson City, NV 89701-4880
MTC-00021465
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
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,
Joan Dodson
2105 Hilton Head Dr
Round Rock, TX 78664-6110
[[Page 27021]]
MTC-00021466
From: Charles Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Plain and simple... I leave outside of the US and if you are not
using MS, you can't get a job.
Regards,
Charles Mason, Director of New Technology
LB Digital, a division of Leo Burnett Middle East
Al Moosa Tower 2, P.O. Box 7534
Sheikh Zayed Road
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
http://www.LBDigital.com
Office +971-4-332-1464 ext.107
Fax +971-4-332-1404
Mobile +971-50-552-3852
[email protected]
MTC-00021467
From: Paul Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As I understand it... Microsoft is to provide free hardware/
software to schools in need. Fine. It should not consist of any
hardware or software that would benefit Microsoft.
Most Respectfully,
Paul Vota
MTC-00021468
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
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,
Ron Dague
740 Topaz Ave.
Billings, MT 59105
MTC-00021469
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
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,
Oren McClure
PO Box 805
Cascade, CO 80809-0805
MTC-00021470
From: David Bialac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am outraged by the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Anti-
trust case. The settlement does nothing but end the case without
resolving the core issue: restoring competition to the internet
browser market. The simple fact of the matter is I can not go into a
store and choose a computer configured as I want it. Instead, I must
take whatever is thrown on there. This on its own is not a huge
issue, provided I can remove the features I don't want.
Unfortunately, this is not the case for the Internet Browser
"Bundled" with Windows. True, there is probably little
market for a computer shipping without a browser, but there is a
market for a computer shipping with a browser other than Internet
Explorer.
Sincerely
David Bialac
Delray Beach, FL
[email protected]
MTC-00021471
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
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,
James Ghilain
202W Amberjack st.
South Padre Island, TX 78597
MTC-00021472
From: Jan Ellison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan Ellison
2131 Burr Ct.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Hello-
I wish to inform you that I firmly believe that the Microsoft
Antitrust settlement does not go anywhere near far enough to address
a convicted party of their misdeeds. I find t difficult to accept
that 8 judges finding Microsoft guilty, can lead to the kind of
settlement reported to the American public by the Justice
Department. Being a software engineer by trade, I have watched as
Microsoft practiced it's predatory nature, watched as company after
company decides not to compete with Microsoft's unfair advantages
and anti-competitive nature.
Thank you for listening.
( Signed)
-Jan Ellison
MTC-00021473
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it my Concern,
I'm a user of IBM OS/2 Warp and have had nothing but problem
with Microsoft products. I believe Microsoft has to much of a strong
hold on all "Venders & Public".. The Last copy of
Microsoft product "XP " that my son bought won't even
use "NetBeui" correctly to work with my home Network.
Which consist of OS/2 Warp v4 & eComStation. There has to be
something done to stop this Strong hold happening. I think all
Operating System should be able to be "Compatible " with
all products that exist with computers. "I DON'T AGREE"
Later,
Jerry Nichols
MTC-00021474
From: Resler, John M
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I am a software developer that uses a variety of operating
systems and machine platforms. I am aware of the recent settlement
attempts involving Microsoft and wish to add my two cents worth.
Microsoft has made some very nice applications software. As a
developer there is a problem with developing software for Microsoft
and that is the difficulty obtaining information about the
underlying system. Microsoft claims that by publishing their
application programming interfaces ( API's ) they are in effect an
open standards operating system. The problem is that when internal
software incompatibilities exist, it is next to impossible to
determine whether the problem is one you have caused or one that is
ocurring because of incomplete information about the underlying
system. This gives an unfair advantage to Microsoft
[[Page 27022]]
developers that have access to the internal details of the
underlying operating system.
I respect Microsofts attempts to earn an honest profit upon
their hard earned dollars. The problem is that with many
undocumented features, developers outside the Microsoft corporate
umbrella are at a big disadvantage developing software for their
platforms. Apparently this is an attempt to effectively corner the
market in software development. An example of this is Microsofts
owner Bill Gates statements that "he wants hardware developers
to get out of the business of writing hardware drivers." If
this desire is implemented, most hardware applications for Unix like
systems such as Linux will be incapable of communication through the
hardware to the OS. The reason I believe this to be the case is that
most corporations enter financial agreements when they develop
software for another vendor. As such, Microsoft will have the
hardware specifications for all new peripheral devices and their
proprietary nature will make it a process of reverse engineering the
devices to make them compatible with Free BSD, Linux and other P.C.
based Unices.
I believe a fair settlement that would sponsor competition in
the market would be to either remove the advantage Microsoft desktop
developers have by requiring the corporation to split. I have no
problem with Bill Gates continuing to own it all, I just resent the
advantage Microsoft developers have in information access. The other
most palatable solution to all parties would be to require Microsoft
to develop its desktop application for other operating systems than
just windows and the macintosh operating system. This would increase
the competition in operating systems dramatically, improve
communications capability between corporations using different
operating systems and make Unix like systems an attractive
alternative to the Windows platform.
Sincerely,
John M. Resler
(316) 523-4474
MTC-00021475
From: Jane Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I have followed the Microsoft antitrust case as well as I could
for the last few years. I understand that they may have kept the
computer software marketplace from being as competitive as it could
have been. However, I feel that they have a superior product and do
not feel like I was hurt by their market dominance. I understand
that the court documents show otherwise. But in the spirit of
"life goes on", I think this case should be resolved
soon, as it has gone on long enough for the general public.
The settlement that has been worked out by the Department of
Justice, etc. seems to be a fair settlement which does penalize
Microsoft somewhat, but gives the other computer manufacturers more
leeway with their products. A number of states have approved of this
settlement, and it would be helpful for the economy and the
taxpayers to bring this aspect of the settlement to a close, with
the agreed upon resolutions.
Regarding the January 2002 AOL lawsuit, the fact that they are
starting this now that this case is finally closer to settlement,
and, also, that AOL only purchased Netscape after this DOJ
investigation was up and running may attest to the fact that AOL
does not want, so much, to compete with Microsoft, as to block
Microsoft from getting back to its main business. I hope that this
newest lawsuit will be seen as only self-serving.
Thank you,
Jane Walters
3612 Middleton Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Jane Walters
Data Collector
Model Spinal Cord Injury Project
300 N. Ingalls, Room NI2A09/0491
(734) 763-9773-desk
[email protected]
MTC-00021476
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40am
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,
Martin Crane
1422 Gartland Ave.
Nashville, TN 37206-2753
MTC-00021477
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:41am
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,
NANCY TEEL
400 SOUTH EVENING ROSE AVE
TUCSON, AZ 85748
MTC-00021478
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40am
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,
Eloise Herrin
709 20th Ave. No.
Texas City, TX 77590
MTC-00021479
From: Gene Zadzilka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
United States Department of Justice, Under the Tunney Act, I
wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I firmly
believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is bad idea because
is does very little to stop known monopolistic practices of
Microsoft.
I have been professionally developing software for over 10 years
and have seen Microsoft use leverage from one aspect of their
business to crush competition in others. They have a long history of
going beyond capitalism and into monopolistic practices. Left
unchecked, this will continue into the future with their .net
initiative.
An example of how the current settlement proposal lacks
substance is the issue of APIs. The Findings of Fact 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.
Sincerely,
Eugene W. Zadzilka
Software Engineer
[[Page 27023]]
Madison, Wisconsin
MTC-00021480
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
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,
Tina Trippe
901 Wesley Avenue
Shreveport, LA 71107-3822
MTC-00021481
From: Michael Cornelius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in
the case of United States v. Microsoft. I am a professional software
developer, active in software design and creation since the early
1980s. I have worked on projects for a variety of platforms
including Windows, Linux, Unix, and Macintosh.
The PFJ is flawed in that it allows many anticompetitive and
exclusionary practices on the part of Microsoft to continue. In
particular, I am concerned that it is insufficiently strong with
regard to the relationship between Microsoft and Independent
Software Vendors (ISV). III.D, for example, requires the disclosure
of APIs and related documentation for Windows Middleware, but only
for the purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System
Product. In fact, Microsoft should be required to disseminate this
information and allow it to be used also for the purpose of
interacting with application software written for Windows Operating
System Products. Similarly, III.E proposals should be broadened to
require the availability of Communications Protocols for use in
interoperating with application software. The use of these protocols
should also extend to client software for any operating system
interoperating with a Microsoft server, as well as any server
software interoperating with client application written for Windows.
In conclusion, the PFJ begins to address anticompetitive and
exclusionary practices of Microsoft, but, unfortunately, stops short
of either redressing past damages or actually preventing future
abuses. I urge reconsideration of the proposed settlement.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Cornelius
Ninth Order Information Systems
Lincoln, Nebraska
MTC-00021482
From: Ryan (038) Sharon Lenox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If you require any more changes from MS-we will suffer as
users of IE and MS. And, we have chosen to use IE and MS. Fact
is-we even want the IE icon on our desktop. Makes our computer
much easier to use. Let's move on to more important things. When the
competition gets better, maybe we will choose another
"brand"-but that's the job of free
enterprise................. not the courts!
Thank-you,
Mr & Mrs. Ryan Lenox
MTC-00021483
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:42am
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,
Phyliss Roberts
3610 Highgreen Kingwood, TX 77339
MTC-00021485
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:42am
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,
stanley Baird
1545 Chandler Rd.
Mt. Juliet, TN 37122
MTC-00021487
From: Chuck Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39am
Subject: A example punishment is in order.
An example punishment is in order. I own a software company. I
use Microsoft products every day. I lost count of the Microsoft
products that I have purchased over the last 15 years. I come to
resent a lot of the arrogance in the company and it is reflected in
their products. I believe some major steps should be taken to soften
their powers. True, their products do set the standards by which the
masses have grown to depend upon. I fear that they are looking to
take steps to hurt other or eliminate competitors.
MTC-00021488
From: Kirk Kerekes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement -a national security issue
The core problem is both similar to, and different from the
"Ma Bell" breakup, which is the only exemplar of
comparable scope in recent history. Similarities:
1. Microsoft dominates the operating systems market not through
overwhelming competence, but through sheer size. Others have
demonstrated superior competence at operating systems software (eg;
Apple). Because of this, there is no way to logically argue that
MS's dominance is "natural" or "good". It
is, instead, a product of freak conditions and aggressive marketing.
This is not just a consumer issue-it is a national security
issue. Due to the Microsoft hegemony, military and security computer
systems are being implemented using grieveously insecure Microsoft
products instead of superior (but lesser known) alternatives. This
is a Bad Thing.
2. Microsoft shows signs of aging badly-it's recent Wintel
offerings have been ill-considered and ill-implemented. Much like
the old "Ma Bell", MS has institutionalized its
incompetence and arrogance.
Differences: There are meaningful alternatives to Microsoft
products available now, and there is no physical infrastructure
element that needs to be divided.
Solution: To dilute the effects of the accidents of history and
predatory practices of Microsoft, the only acceptable and workable
solution is to genuinely divide the company into separate and
isolated corporate entities: An operating systems division, and an
applications division.
These divisions must be physically separate, and must be
prohibited from privately communicating with each other. The
applications division must proceed with its operations using the
same information that is available to independent software
[[Page 27024]]
developers. Any other solution is just smoke and mirrors.
MTC-00021489
From: Paul Hamm
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 11:00am
Subject: ATT survived
You broke up the ATT monopoly and it turned out to be the best
thing you could have done for the communications industry. Why don't
you go 2 for 2. Just tell GWB to get off your patch and do what has
to be done.
Paul Hamm
Manager Technical Services
Open Ratings Inc
617-582-5124
www.openratings.com
MTC-00021490
From: Mike Sheehy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:35am
Subject: MICROSOFT
Sirs:
I would ask that you refrain from any further persecution of the
Microsoft Corp and Bill Gates. It has become nothing more than a
witchhunt; and will only serve to hurt those that depend on them for
internet access, employment, and livelihood. Your attempts to
demolish Microsoft are little more than a welfare program for some
of the less popular competitors and will accomplish nothing in the
way of aiding those allegedly "injured" by Microsoft;
the computer users. It may make the states a little wealthier, but
no one else. The inconvenience of it to the vast majority of users
will be unfathomable however. If the other systems were as good they
would be sold off the shelves, not crying for the Government to
shore up their inferior products.
Does it not seem strange to you as a responsible, intelligent
individual that so many millions have been spent to persecute a
company that supports,families, pays taxes, and is generally a very
viable part of the American economy; while so little if any monies
had been spent to protect these same people from the likes of Osama
Bin Laden and other terrorists. Had they not taken out the World
Trade Center we may not yet be doing anything to destroy them and
their groups in spite of proir knowlege and proof of their ill
intent. Instead we continue to attempt to destroy the American
sector with Government interference,suits and red tape.
I would ask you to as a fellow American then to stop the
persecution of the Microsoft Company; they are also Americans. Use
our money more wisely to give us a chance against foreign agressors,
not against those that employ us. When a better mousetrap is built
it will sell, but so far there are none.
Thank You,
Mike Sheehy
P.O. Box 407
Iron River, MI 49935
MTC-00021491
From: James D. Saint
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please consider the importance of competition in our society.
Regardless of the arguments made, it is clear that Microsoft has,
and continues, to use its dominant operating system to force
consumers to buy its other products, and to push competitors out of
the market. Nothing goes more against the basis tenents of our
economic system. The leaps in computer technology and ease of use
have slowed dramatically since Microsoft's dominence has become
monopolistic.
In the 1980's Atari, Commodore, and Apple in the US, and
Sinclair and Apricot in Europe, and even Microsoft, provided
innovation development in the industry, with rapidly declining
prices. Today, a new operating system merely means the incorporation
of a copy of somebody else's innovative product into Windows, and an
increased price. Soon, other companies will have no incentive to
develop software that Microsoft may someday be interested in
dominating.
America is competition, not monopolistic. Our economy and our
society has thrived on competition, please do not abandone the
principle now.
James D. Saint
MTC-00021492
From: Noah Vawter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to contribute my opinion in this democratic
system: that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the
United States concerning the antritrust lawsuit is not satisfactory,
because I believe Microsoft is an unfair monopoly and should be
broken up.
thank you for taking the time to elicit comments.
sincerely,
Noah Vawter
MTC-00021493
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:44am
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,
Scott Cleveland
5822 S. Sedum Way
Boise, ID 83716-7008
MTC-00021494
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft settlement is bad for business.
Microsoft broke the law and should pay for what they have done.
Otherwise you will let big companies with a lot of money destroy all
of the small companies.
Sincerely,
Craig E. Smith
Staff Engineer
Sun Microsystems
901 San Antonio Rd. MS USJC06-203
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ph. (408) 635-0811
MTC-00021495
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:44am
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,
Roger Peterson
113 Indian Creek Road
Sheridan, MT 59749
MTC-00021496
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:45am
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.
[[Page 27025]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judith Littell
128 W. Union Ave
Wheaton, IL 60187-4125
MTC-00021497
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement public comment
The currently proposed settlement in this case does not remedy
the gross distortions of the market that Microsoft's practices have
created and continue to create. The proposed settlement allows
Microsoft to put this affair behind them at a relatively low cost
(for them), while not resolving any of the outstanding fundamental
issues at the heart of the case.
Microsoft claims that this is about the freedom to innovate. If
the currently proposed settlement goes forward and Microsoft
continues its established pattern of behavior (which it shows every
indication of doing), Microsoft will be the only one who will
benefit from the freedom to innovate, while continuing to stifle
that same freedom among its competitors. I agree that there should
be a freedom to innovate, but I argue that this freedom should be
available to all, and that the marketplace should decide which
innovations thrive, not one company with the monopoly power to
squash competitors or crush them in its embrace.
I urge the DOJ to abandon the currently proposed settlement and
continue work on concluding the case in a manner that protects the
interests of United States citizens and promotes a fair, competitive
marketplace. The current settlement only protects established
corporate interests, and will allow these interests to continue to
prevent competitors from establishing their own foothold in a
rapidly changing market. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on
this.
Paolo Mangiafico (Senior Manager, Information
Technology-Duke University)
1412 Sedwick Road
Durham, NC 27713-2624 USA
[email protected]
Note that these are my own opionions and do not necessarily
represent those of my employer, though they are shared by many of my
colleagues.
MTC-00021498
From: Charles Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current proposed final judgement on the Microsoft antitrust
case is inadequate. Terms used in the document (such as
"API" or "Windows OS") are either misdefined
or poorly defined. It also falls short on such crucial aspects as
remedies if Microsoft fails to keep its promises, removal of
artificial barriers to entry into the operating system software
business, and proper protection of Open Source authors. A proper
final judgement should address all of these concerns.
- CHS
[email protected]
MTC-00021499
From: Dave Bloch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I wish to state my opinion of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
I think it is fair and a good thing to do. It is good that the
government have only limited oversite of business. The government
should not protect weaker firms simply because they are weaker. If
we did not allow the auto companies to innovate and put radios,
heaters and the like in their autos inorder to protect the radio and
heater makers that would have been a crazy thing to do. Fortunately
the government leaders did not do that many years ago. The auto
industry was stronger for it. We should keep the sofware industry
strong........the strongest in the world. I vote to approve the
settlement.
Thank you,
David Bloch
MTC-00021500
From: Clauset, Aaron
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The MS Settlement is shameful! Not only does it fail to actually
hold Microsoft accountable for it's blatantly (and court-proven)
anti-trust behavior, but it's weakness effectively condones the
corporate bullying practices that allowed Microsoft to extend its OS
monopoly to other markets in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act. That the DoJ bowed-out of the case with such a pitifully weak
set of consequences has destroyed my faith in the Bush
administration-led DoJ to hold corporations fully accountable under
the law.
Disgusted at corporate appeasement,
Aaron Clauset
2001 Northcliff Dr., Apt 416
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
MTC-00021501
From: George Hartogensis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justice Department: I am vigorously opposed to the proposed
settlemnet in the Microsoft. As an IT professionsal, I find that it
does not even begin to redress Microsoft's past behavior, nor does
it inhibit them from continuing to use their monopoly position to
keep out competition. One of the areas where it is weakest is that
of the issue of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
The settlement requires that Microsoft open up its APIs to its
middleware, then it very narrowly defines middeware. First, the APIs
to the OS itself should be opened up, and secondly, this provision
should be expanded to cover MS Office and Microsoft's .NET
technology, which it does not.
Another Applications Barrier to Entry issue that the settlement
ignores is the changing file format issue. Undocumented file formats
were part of the "Findings of Fact" against Microsoft.
Goverment's job is to provide an infrastructure within which
businesses can compete. If one player becomes huge, then the playing
field is no longer even. It is government's duty to level the field.
In this way, consumers are given the widest choice at the lowest
prices, and the industry itself is able to flourish.
Please do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,
-G
George Hartogensis
Team Leader-Unix Systems Administration
RUSH-Presbyterian St. Lukes Medical Center
1700 West Van Buren Suite 374
Chicago, IL 60612-3244
(312) 942-5000 Ext. 2-1506
[email protected]
MTC-00021502
From: Leonard Clifton J Contr 72 CS/SCBN
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this to be a bad idea. I will provide more comments
later, but wanted to insure that this email arrived before the
comment period closes. Also, I will be happy to sign the
[email protected]. I am in Oklahoma, City, OK and am a
certified Systems Engineer and Trainer through Microsoft.
Thanx
Clifton Leonard
CC:'petition(a)kegel.com'
MTC-00021503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47am
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,
stephen sandberg
7420 Village Dr
Prairie Village, KS 66208-286
MTC-00021504
From: David S. Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This DOJ settlement with M$ is inadequate. M$ will continue to
be a blight on the industry by using their tremendous
[[Page 27026]]
market and financial power to suppress competition on a public that
is too unaware of the superior alternatives to M$ products. If the
settlement is left unchanged, the uninformed public will remain at
the mercy of the Microsoft marketing juggernaut.
David S. Jackson
[email protected]
MTC-00021505
From: dshenry4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:50am
Subject: Anti-trust suit
Netscape was indeed harmed by Microsoft anti-trust monopolistic
business practices. Also, I believe the public was very likely over-
charged for Windows operating systems because of inclusion of
"middle-ware" in the system.
Microsoft should be broken up into three different
organizations:
1. Operating systems.
2. All other Microsoft software.
3. Joint business ventures with other companies.
Respectfully,
David S. Henry
1620 S. 118th E. Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74128-5636
MTC-00021506
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47am
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,
Richard Keene
328 Schooner ave.
Edgewater, FL 32141
MTC-00021507
From: David Caldwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are heartened by the U.S government's move toward settling
with Microsoft and feel it could not come soon enough. As consumers,
we have benefited greatly from the technologies Microsoft has
brought to us at affordable prices.
Thanks,
David and Lynn Caldwell
Charlotte, NC
MTC-00021508
From: Adam Rossi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement for the Microsoft case is bad. Very bad.
The settlement is weak and will not alter Microsoft's behavior! We
have a problem here, we all know it, and this settlement does not
help solve the problem!
Regards,
PS: If you want the "man on the street" opinion,
feel free to call me.
PH: 703.471.9793
MTC-00021509
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:45am
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,
Carole L Jones
978 CR 1695
Alba, TX 75410-6429
MTC-00021510
From: simon tyrrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We need a level playing field because free competition drives
developmental evolution, even MS needs that. The whole world is
counting on you. All of our futures depend on you, please don't let
us down.
Please force MS Windows to SHIP with support for open cross
platform formats such as JAVA and Mpeg4. MS stopped "out-of-
the-box" support for JAVA. Though support can be added by the
end user it is enough to deter developers and users from exploring
further. Many companies are involved is some ground breaking
products built on these technologies.
Go see below.
http://www.forbidden.co.uk/videos/demo-71/
Format control is the ultimate goal of MS. Don't let them have
the ball.
MTC-00021511
From: jdrichintx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:51am
Subject: aol suite against micro soft
I think it is time for AOL to quit trying to us the gov. to stop
compitention and make them more money and less choices for the
consumer. please put a stop to this now.
jack richardson
carrollton texas.
MTC-00021512
From: Meltdown Productions
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My two cents worth.
There really is a difference between aggressive business
practices and ones that are predatory. Microsoft's fall squarely
into the latter. The proposed remedy as I understand it will allow
Microsoft to do nothing more than give away software, services, and
some refurbished PC's to schools. Does anyone not see the problem
with this? Apple computer's last stronghold is the educational
market. If you allow Microsoft to give the software and PC's away to
schools, then you will be doing the same thing as driving nails into
Apple's coffin. A better remedy, would be to take the one billion
dollars and make Microsoft buy Apple Macintosh computers with it.
This will accomplish two things. 1st, it will allow a company that
is a real competitor to gain more of a foothold and possibly even
have a better chance of competing with them. 2nd, this will cost
Microsoft the full one billion dollars. If you allow them to give
away software, this costs them nothing. Hit them where it hurts and
give another standard a chance to flourish.
Edward Yoho
720 Everglade Drive
Melbourne, FL 32935
MTC-00021513
From: Frank Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to settle so everyone's energies can focus on new
progress. This case has caused more financial harm than 9/11. Stop
the bleeding!
Franklin Smith
275 Riverside Dr.
Morattico, VA 22523
MTC-00021514
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello-
I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed settlement in
the Microsoft case is grossly inadequate. In its present form, it
will do little to nothing to curtail Microsoft's anti-competitive
behavior nor punish it for its illegal efforts to protect its
monopoly. The proposals are written such that it will be quite easy
for Microsoft to subvert and avoid the intention of those proposals.
At a minimum, the proposals recommended by Dan Kegal's Open Letter
(www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html), of which I am a co-signer, or
those of Ralph Nader and James Love (www.cptech.org/at/ms/
[[Page 27027]]
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html) should be incorporated into any
settlement.
Frankly, I think the only way to prevent Microsoft from abusing
its monopoly is to break the company up, where the applications part
is separate from the operating system part. All other solutions rely
to heavily on Microsoft simply behaving itself, something it has
shown no inclination to do.
Petre Scheie
St. Louis Park, MN
MTC-00021515
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:48am
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 Boyd
13 Fieldstone Rd.
Elkton, MD 21921-8402
MTC-00021516
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
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 Boone
PO Box 994
Sharpsburg, NC 27878-0994
MTC-00021517
From: Jalon Leach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
During this period of public comment, I would like to add my
opinion on the Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement which is based on my
experience in the use of both Netscape Navigator and Internet
Explorer.
I have been a user of both Windows 95 and Windows 98SE. Both
packages were bundled with Netscape Navigator and Windows Explorer.
I found Netscape Navigator to be buggy, difficult to use, and to
lack the desirable features which Internet Explorer contained. After
about four months of use I deleted the Netscape Navigator in favor
of Internet Explorer which I found to be a superior program. During
the time which I used Netscape Navigator I downloaded an update to
the program version which I had and found no material improvement in
its use or capability. I am glad that Microsoft made both programs
available so that I could compare them both through actual use.
I see no difference between Microsoft's action and the actions
of two hotels: one hotel offering free services to its customers for
which a second hotel charges. I believe that the current litigation
simply rewards competitors for inferior products, provides unearned
income for state government, and punishes the computer users. Since
Microsoft has agreed to remedy any technical violation of the law,
then I believe that further punishment is unwarranted and the suit
should be closed.
Sincerely,
Jalon R. Leach
HC 1 Box 1750
Wappapello, Mo., 63966
MTC-00021518
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:51am
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 High
7527 Quail Run
San Antonio, TX 78209
MTC-00021519
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:50am
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,
Ricky Hollis, Sr.
167 David Road
Durham, CT 06422
MTC-00021520
From: Gregory Bourassa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the proposed settlement.
I have suffered financially and professionally as a result of
Microsoft's illegitimate and illegal practices, and believe the
company should be separated into parts and placed under very strict
supervision as regards their preload practices and the pressure they
place on channel partners.
Gregory Bourassa
MTC-00021521
From: Philip Fletcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft Settlement Terms
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly
I have read with interest the proposed terms of settlement
between the Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
Acceptance of these terms would send an irrevocable message to
the people of both the United States and those in the rest of the
world who suffer under Microsoft's immoral and (now proven) illegal
practices:
Let the Punishment Fit the Crime.
The 'civilized' world objectively enforces laws on
individials when their behaviour is unacceptable in society, yet
Microsoft has been able to sustain illegal business practices over
many years without fear of commensurate punishment.
Respect for the Law
Although I applaud the Department of Justice in bringing
Microsoft to trial these settlement terms reveal a lack of
willingness or courage to apply justice when faced by a powerful
opponent. How can individuals be expected to respect the law when
Americas largest corporation does not?
Morality Applies only to People
[[Page 27028]]
Harming others is OK, so long as it's in the name of business? I
work in the IT industry and am all too aware of the detrimental
effect of Microsoft's business practices on many individual's
livelihoods and families.
And Finally
If you have read this far: Thank You. All we (the IT community)
ask, is that you seize this last opportunity to reign in a
corporation that has forgotten how to behave in a civilized manner.
Acceptance of these settlement terms would be an endorsement of
immoral and illegal behaviour.
Yours respectfully
Philip Fletcher
[email protected]
MTC-00021522
From: Bob Ackley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:52am
Subject: Antitrust case
I've heard that you folks have been looking for commentary with
regard to the recent Microsoft antitrust case. If true, I'm sure
you've been inundated. Well, here's my $.02:
First, a little history.
Way back in 1977 a fellow named Gary Kildall developed a common
operating system for the Intel family of microcomputers, he called
it "Control Program for Microprocessors" or CP/M. Prior
to the introduction of the product there were probably a hundred
different companies making Intel (8080 chip) based microcomputers,
most of which had proprietary control programs and were
incompatible-i.e. any application had to have a different
version for each company. CP/M changed that, with its
introduction-and it was designed to run on any 8080 based
machine- application programmers had to write only one
version. Kildall formed a company called "Digital Research
Inc." (DRI)to develop and produce CP/M.
In the late 1970's/1980 time frame, Intel designed an improved
microprocessor chip it called the 8086. Digital Research developed a
version of CP/M for that chip called CP/M-86.
IBM designed its original Personal Computer around that chip.
But while IBM had many operating systems, it did not have one for
the PC. IBM first went to Digital Research to have them develop the
operating system. There are many versions of what happened, most
likely IBM reps "dropped in" on Kildall and he wasn't
in. In any case, the IBM reps left Digital Research and flew to
Seattle to talk to Microsoft. At the time, Microsoft's product line
consisted of a BASIC interpreter called MBASIC, an assembler and
linker called M80 and L80 respectively.
IBM asked Gates if he could come up with an operating system for
the soon-to-be-released PC. Gates said "sure" and signed
on to do it. After IBM left, he went across town to a company called
"Seattle Computer Products" and purchased the rights to
their 8086 operating system called QDOS, for "Quick and Dirty
Operating System," for about $50,000. This is the product that
became PC-DOS and MS-DOS (for PC clones not built by IBM).
When IBM released their PC, it was a box with 256KB of RAM and
two floppy disk drives. With a monitor and keyboard it would set one
back about $2,500. No operating system was included. IBM would also
sell you PC-DOS for an additional $40, or it would sell you CP/M-86
for $240. Both worked, but note the price difference.
A tidbit of information that was never publicised is the fact
that Gary Kildall noted that Microsoft's product contained code that
he had written, copied without permission or license (whether by
Seattle Computer or by Microsoft is irrlevant, the code was stolen).
Kildall chose not to confront Microsoft but to try to coexist with
them, he was also worried about his relationship with IBM.
In the mid 1980s, after the PC market got away from them, IBM
decided to try to recapture it by bringing out a whole new
proprietary line of Intel based computers with a whole new operating
system. This was to be called the Personal System/2 or PS/2. IBM
contracted with Microsoft to form a 50/50 partnership to develop a
whole new operating system for its new microcomputer line, that was
to be called "Operating System /2" or OS/2. Microsoft,
however, pursued an additional and very different strategy. While
delaying development of OS/2, it pushed development of its own
graphical user interface very hard, and got it out before OS/2 was
ready. That program was called Windows. And, of course, since it was
solely a Microsoft product, Microsoft didn't have to split any
revenues from it with IBM.
IBM finally "fired" Microsoft from the OS/2 project
around 1990 and completely reworked the product. This became OS/2
version 3, or "Warp," and was released in early 1994.
Unfortunately, Microsoft already owned the market for operating
systems on Intel based machines by then, and people and companies
were reluctant to switch to OS/2, which was (and remains) clearly a
superior system. OS/2 version 3 is also superior to the vaunted
Windows 95 (which, incidentally, contains concepts and ideas
Microsoft adopted from the OS/2 project).
Another reason for customers" reluctance to switch at the
time was Microsoft's lock on the hardware manufacturers with its
"per-processor" licensing contracts, which discouraged
manufacturers from furnishing competing software products with their
hardware. Microsoft lost a lawsuit over this practice years ago and
supposedly doesn't do it any more.
The bottom line is that Microsoft has *never* competed fairly
since it got into the operating system business back around 1980/
1981. -------- Something
else that's been lost in all of the dust and hoopla surrounding the
Microsoft case is exactly what an operating system is. A computer
operating system exists to manage the hardware, perform input/output
(read/write) operations and perform calculations, period. The
operating system also handles the interface between the application
and the hardware (and, in multiprogramming systems-systems
that run more than one application at a time-it keeps the
applications from interfering with one another). That's all. The
Graphical User Interface is an application, as are file (web)
browsers (the web is after all is just a very large filing system),
music players, communications software, etc. Microsoft chooses to
integrate many applications into its operating system, some it
purchases (Doublespace), some it licenses (SpeedDisk, from Norton),
some it steals (Stacker, from Stac Electronics, which sued and won),
and some it clones (Media player, which competes with Real Audio).
What to do about it? Breaking up the company has already been
rejected, any fines would just be passed along to Microsoft's
customers. My favored solution is to require Microsoft to provide
all of its customers with all of its software products and services,
one bundle, one price. Whether its for a low end ersonal Digital
Assistant or a high-end server doesn't matter, they all get
everything. Perhaps tack on a tax of $100 or so per copy/license of
the product. Microsoft should also be required to place their
operating system's "Applications Program Interface" or
"API" in the public domain, so that other operating
systems such as Linux or OS/2 can be modified to run programs
written for the Windows operating system.
As I said at the top, it's just my $.02.
Bob Ackley
[email protected]
MTC-00021523
From: jonrc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I sent in an email yesterday, but I wanted to point out that I
would be supporting and co-signing Dan Kegel's Open Letter.
Thanks,
Jonathan Cameron
MTC-00021524
From: Mark Heinze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please refer to http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Mark Heinze
[email protected]
MTC-00021525
From: Rolly Green
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 10:54am
Subject: I DON'T AGREE.
I DON'T AGREE.
Rolly
I'll never forget the first time I tried Windows..
But I'm trying!
MTC-00021526
From: Don Elder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am the Vice President of a software company that develops
Windows compatible products. I also am a developer of both Windows
software and browser based software.
I have reviewed the documents provided by the DOJ. It seems that
the DOJ and courts have got the facts wrong. Netscape failed because
it was and remains an inferior product. When Netscape first came out
in the
[[Page 27029]]
mid 90's I attempted to obtain information needed to write a
Netscape "plug-in" to make it possible for the output of
my software to be viewable by a Netscape user. I quickly found that
Netscape provided no documentation and demanded hundreds of dollars
in prepayment for unspecified documentation and support. After
several weeks of effort that went nowhere, I gave up on ever
obtaining the needed information.
What is interesting is the fact that Netscape required extra
effort on the part of developers to make the output of their
software visible to Netscape users. To me this seemed to be more of
a scam aimed at ripping off software developers. This integration
with the browser has always been automatic with Internet Explorer
and remains so today. Developers of standard Windows programs who
properly register their file types with Windows do not have to go to
any extra effort to have their files displayed via a link from the
Internet Explorer browser.
It is very sad that the DOJ got pulled into this ridiculous
lawsuit by people who ran their own companies into the ground by
making bad decisions. We have been a developer of Windows based
products since 1989 and are a direct competitor of Microsoft.
Microsoft has never been anything other than an excellent software
company and honest competitor.
I truly hope that we will see the end of DOJ meddling in the
software business.
Sincerely,
Don Elder,
Vice President
KIDASA Software, Inc.
1114 Lost Creek Blvd.
Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
(512)-328-0167
MTC-00021527
From: Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Reader, Microsoft has been singled out for unfair business
practices, however these same practices are being used by every
company on the planet. So, why is Microsoft under the microscope,
because they are successful. They have great success because the
LISTEN to what the consumer wants and then they went out and built
it. Should anyone be punished for successes? This is just a waste of
my tax dollars and the nations time, What is needed is not
litigation but competition. Some needs to come up with a product as
good as the one Microsoft has.
Thank you
Frank Morales
MTC-00021528
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54am
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,
Sarha Lucas
16040 Bahama St
North Hills, CA 91343-3006
MTC-00021529
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54am
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,
Gerald & Hazel Bradford
751 Adams Street
Rockton, IL 61072-2150
MTC-00021530
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
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,
THOMAS HANNY
1170 E. WOODRICH RD.
FREMONT, OH 43420
MTC-00021531
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to voice my opinions and concerns about the ongoing
litigation against the Microsoft Corporation.
From the very beginning, it has been clear to myself and to most
of the public that the suit was initiated by the companies who
compete against Microsoft rather than by the consumer. It is my
understanding that the antitrust laws were designed to protect the
consumer and not to protect the competition. As a consumer, I have
seen Microsoft regularly improve the quality and content of its
products while keeping their prices extremely reasonable and
affordable. I am sure you would agree that the American consumer is
a shrewd and frugal one, and that if we felt that some "big,
bad, ruthless monopolist" were "ripping us off,"
it would be the consumer who would choose a better and cheaper
product as they have done throughout our history. Many so called
monopolists such as the Ford Corporation have been naturally
"reigned in" by their competition who produced a more
attractive or cheaper product which the consumer chose to purchase.
Should the Walmart Corporation be sued by the Kmart Corporation for
forcing it into bankruptcy because the consumer chose to shop at
Walmart where prices were cheaper and goods more available?
The current suit by AOL against Microsoft is just as ridiculous.
If I felt that the Netscape Browser was the superior product,
believe me when I say that my family would be using it right now. I
have tried that browser and found it to be more confusing and not as
user friendly than the Microsoft browser. That is the reason I
continue to use Microsoft's browser and not because my computer came
with it! Believing that is to insult the intelligence of the
American public. Whether Microsoft is or is not a monopoly is not
the issue. If it is, it became that way naturally because we prefer
its products and prices over its competition. Why should our
government be wasting our taxes pursuing a company whose products
its citizens want?
With all the other issues facing this country, especially since
9/11/01, it is time to put this case behind us and accept the
proposed settlement as is. It would benefit the consumer and the
country as a whole and especially the schools whose students would
greatly benefit from the materials Microsoft has agreed to provide
them with. The amount of litigation in this country has become
nauseating and is paralyzing individuals and corporations from
conducting their lives and businesses because of the fear of being
sued. Even my 9 year old is encouraging me to "sue"
anytime I express dissatisfaction with something. Is this the
message we are communicating to the next generation?
[[Page 27030]]
Please settle this case immediately and send the message to our
children that we cannot "sue" our way to success. End
these suits and settle the case once and for all. If the competition
truly want to punish Microsoft, let them develop products that we
will want to buy and use instead of Microsoft's, and at a cheaper
price. Walmart understood this and has "harmed their
competition," to the benefit of it's consumers.
I don't see anyone suing them......... yet!!!
Sincerely,
Mrs. Shelley Mora
MTC-00021532
From: Ralph A Webb
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph A Webb
305 Arden Drive
Jefferson City , MO 65109
January 24, 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,
Ralph A Webb
MTC-00021533
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
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 Wittorff
Rt 1 Box 349
Ava, MO 65608-9725
MTC-00021534
From: Victor Trombettas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Network Manager for 8 years and a Technical Support person
for 4 years prior to that, I can tell you that I have seen Microsoft
have a neagative impact on the market in the following ways: -they
would buy competitors (like FoxPro databases) only to eventually
kill that product line and force customers from that former
competitor to "upgrade" to Microsoft technology.
The whole thing with Internet Explorer ... they basically bought the
rights to Mosaic's browser as I understand and basically killed
Netscape by offering IE for FREE
Java-a wonderful effort to create write-once-run-many apps.
What did Microsoft do? They tried to sabotage it so it would only
run on Windows.
Apple-I don't have to tell you what happened here with the
whole "we'll sell Office for Mac if you kill QuickTime"
Even in their settlement offer! they tried to increase market share
by giving away Microsoft products in an effort to cut off
competitors like Apple
It is extemely dangerous for ANY industry, a nation and world for
that matter, to be SO dependent on ONE company. It is a national
security issue given how easy it is for hackers and cyber terrorists
since they can target their attacks for only 1 operating system and
one messaging system, Outlook. We've put all our eggs in 1 basket
and we are at risk.
They are dangerous because they are not the real
"Innovators" in the personal computer realm. They are
replicators and predators. There is only ONE solution. Microsoft
must be broken up into two or more companies. One will be ONLY
operating system(s) NOT including integrated web browser technology
from IE. They can rip it out. The other company(ies) will be Apps.
Microsoft Office. Their database products should ALSO be separate
from their Office Apps because they also have a dangerous monopoly
there with Office and MS SQL Server they try to exploit.
Much has been stated by Microsoft to the effect that altering the
company will have an adverse economic impact on the nation. Let me
tell you what already has had a negative impact:
Sys Admins dealing with a never ending flood of virus and security
problems for Windows. I forgot the last time I had a serious concern
with our Macs.
the ever increasing licensing issues ... where we have to pay tithe
to gates and co. to upgrade to the latest version of their software
that's supposed to be more stable and secure.
Kindly,
Victor Trombettas
LAN/WAN Manager
[email protected]
American Technion Society
http://www.ats.org
Phone: 212-307-2503
Fax: 212-262-6155
MTC-00021535
From: Theodore Howard
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore Howard
5818 NE 70th St A303
Seattle, WA 98115-8136
January 24, 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,
Ted Howard
MTC-00021536
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54am
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
[[Page 27031]]
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,
Kristin McAllister
17920 Alps Drive
Tehachapi, CA 93561-0000
MTC-00021537
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I know you'll have heard this time and time again, but you'll
hear it once more from me: splitting MS up would probably be the
best solution for all. They could then get back to writing software
products rather than marketing "software solutions."
Above and beyond anything else, far from promoting innovation in
the software industry, they have stifled it, time and time again. So
many of their supposed innovations were actually developed by others
and either bought up or simply stolen outright. This is a company
with a sick philosophy. Time to remind it that it doesn't have
outright control of everything.
Yours sincerely,
Aram Simon
MTC-00021538
From: Marc Webb
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marc Webb
707 Cardinal St.
Jefferson City, MO 65109
January 24, 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,
Marc T. Webb
MTC-00021539
From: Michael Smallwood
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Smallwood
11800 Passage Way
Cincinnati, OH 45240
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Michael Smallwood
MTC-00021540
From: Hazel McGregor
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hazel McGregor
P.O. Box 1462
Euless, TX 76039
January 24, 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,
H. McGregor
MTC-00021541
From: John Paoloemilio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/24/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Paoloemilio
117 Victor St
Weirton, WV 26062
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars,
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John A. Paoloemilio
[[Page 27032]]
MTC-00021542
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55am
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,
Andrea Lublink
445 Margaret Terrace
Cary, IL 60013
MTC-00021543
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:56am
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,
Mike Jordan
4361 Frey's Farm Ln
Kennesaw, GA 30152
MTC-00021544
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58am
Subject: litagation
It is about time we stopped all litagation against
Microsoft.Competition is the Mother of inovation ,without it we
would still be in the dark ages.It is costing the consumer a
fortune.At the same time restricting industry to move forward.Lets
solve our problems without the courts .I hope we have people
intelligent enough to work out the troubles.
Frank j.Wisenant a concerned citizen!
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00021545
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:56am
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,
kerry morgan
605 aviara
johnstown, CO 80534
MTC-00021546
From: Ryan Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever this concerns,
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. 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,
Ryan Dennis
[email protected]
phone: (602)659-7757
pager: (877)812-3398 pager mail:
[email protected]
MTC-00021547
From: Jeremy J. Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00am
Subject: Comments
United States Department of Justice;
The anti-trust case against Microsoft is wrong. Consumer choice
has put Microsoft where it is today. If a consumer does not want
Microsoft products they don't have to buy them. If it is packaged on
a computer then they can choose to buy a different computer. The
computer manufacturers are installing Microsoft operating systems
because that is what the consumers want and if they don't they will
lose sales. No one has a right to tell Microsoft what they can and
can not put into any of their proprietary products.
No one is forcing any consumers to buy Microsoft products at the
point of a gun. I have run Windows, converted to Linux and now I am
running on Mac OS X...because I chose to.
Best Regards,
Jeremy J. Nelson
CEO/Founder
Intahnet
224 Witchtrot Road
South Berwick, ME 03908
web: www.intahnet.com
e-mail: [email protected]
phone: 207.384.4736
MTC-00021548
From: M.L. McCauley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
As a small businessman whose livelihood is based on the
development of software, I feel that I am in as good a position as
anyone to remark on the business practices of the Microsoft
Corporation. Microsoft is not simply an "aggressive
competitor". Microsoft is a monopolist that repeatedly has
employed unfair and illegal practices to quash its competitors and
manipulate the marketplace to their advantage and the loss of the
consuming public.
Despite their "spin" rhetoric, the contempt that Mr.
Gates and his executives have for their customer base and
competitors, and their caviler disregard for the law of the land, is
legendary within the industry. These realities are often masked by
the fact that the consuming public is virtually powerless against
the Microsoft Windows juggernaut, and competitors fear the wrath of
a company who has proven time and again that it can, and will, do
virtually anything to insure its dominance of the software
marketplace.
I cannot sufficiently emphasize that I feel that the currently
purposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is highly inadequate in terms
of both remedies for those many parties who have been harmed by this
unfair competitor, and future protections for software developers
and the consuming public.
M.L. McCauley
President
Mtech Services
2423 Monaco Ln.
Dallas, Texas 75233-2825
MTC-00021549
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I encourage support for Microsoft in resolving this case.
bj brennan,
25 Macleay Road,
Montville, NJ..07045
MTC-00021550
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
[[Page 27033]]
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,
Patti Pearsall
3209 N 3RD PL
Broken Arrow, OK 74012
MTC-00021551
From: Bob Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00021552
From: Darren Zrubek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
please, please,... let the voice of "US" the small
guy be heard in this case. "us" or "we" the
end consumer have no power or voice in these proceedings, only the
folks with the power of the almighty dollar get to speak (MS).
i think it to be a travesty that this case is just going to be
brushed under the carpet and MS will get a nice soft slap on the
hand and a Please do not do that again.
MS should be held accountable to the nth degree, they should be
putting a billion dollars in cash into the schools, under
privileged, and non-profit orgs. NOT MS PRODUCT!!! this will give MS
even more of an unfair advantage, once again shoving aside the
opportunity of the small guy!
please do not do this, we need free trade and competition. it is
what the moral fiber of our country stands for!! or at least used to
stand for.. thank you for your time,
dZ
darren zrubek
graphics manager/ senior illustrator
spyder active sports, inc.
303.449.0611 xt 20
[email protected]
MTC-00021553
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:57am
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,
Dennis Doyle
8109 Squirrel Run Road
Springfield, VA 22152
MTC-00021554
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58am
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,
David Pearsall
3209 N 3RD PL
Broken Arrow, OK 74012
MTC-00021555
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't understand how this settlement prevents Microsoft's
monopolistic practices. The Internet browser is still embedded in
the OS. The cost of software is still not in line with the changes
in the cost of hardware.
Where does the computer consumer benefit from this settlement?
MTC-00021556
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58am
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,
David R. Hedeman
P.O. Box 125
Dayton, MT 59914
MTC-00021557
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00am
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,
Donald Love
11922 Co Rd 16
West Unity, OH 43570-9560
MTC-00021558
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DoJ: It is to be hoped that the ongoing and newly initiated
litigation against Microsoft will be brought to a speedy conclusion.
The interests of the American public and the national economy are at
stake. Calvin Coolidge remarked that the business of America is
business. Unfettered, this nation is unbeatable, tied in knots with
wrangling, snarling litigation, America will loose its luster as
preeminent in the global market place.
Sincerely,
Bidwell Moore
MTC-00021559
From: Hagy-Weatherbee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
[[Page 27034]]
Paragraphs 1-3: Former Consumer of Microsoft's public
operating system (read-non business) software rant
Paragraph 4-7: Re-defining a Monopoly while keeping within
the standard definition (I hope)
Final Questions and Statements
Any company that would put out products such as Windows 95, 98,
Millennium and XP (the last two are based on my father and brother's
experiences) should be put in a deep, dark, hole.
They are bug ridden operating systems internally incompatible
(Win 95 and 98 both require DOS which is a 16 bit platform. They hid
this in the 32 bit platform of an upgraded Windows 3.1 which they
called Win 95 History lesson done).
Put upon a public with no other true OS options but to purchase
Unix or Linux (both server software really) or Microsoft's business
operating systems which seem to work within normal glitch
parameters. The public could do as I did and by Apple software...
but that means total abandonment of nearly all previous software and
the purchase of all new hardware.
If the above is not enough to burn them how about this:
A Monopoly. I see Microsoft (and others to be fair) as
attempting not to monopolize the computer Operating System and
related software realm, but, trying to monopolize how we
Communicate.
Microsoft bundles it's browser which is made to work perfectly
with their os. Competitors do not get full os specs so their
browsers do not function properly. Microsoft then starts MSN, their
own video console game platform-the Xbox.
The last really caught my attention. Console platforms will soon
be internet capable... what better way to extend MSN's influence. As
I noted briefly above Microsoft is not the only one I see trying to
limit my tele-communication choices: AOL-Time Warner, Disney-ABC and
AT&T just merged with someone (damn sloppy of me not to have the
facts... sorry) and a few others I can not recall, again, sorry.
All of them working on internet-cable/television-telephone
operations, or some combination thereof. If we stick with the top
three only is that competition? Are we really getting the best price
for our choices?
No. Yet, I was speaking of Microsoft. With the melding of
communications over the last few years the merging of companies the
idea of a monopoly must move beyond the oil and railroad standards
set a hundred years ago. A broader view must be taken. It can be
taken while still using present law (mostly). Especially for the
Communications arena.
Microsoft is in a position to be the software company for
anything computer/internet/video gaming, whatever allows one to
communicate...they have the position and the potential to corner the
market.
Does the law require that a monopoly be present in order to
bring the punishment to bear? Or is the potential enough?
If it is an Anti-trust suit brought by business, does that not
also mean the anti-trust is affecting my family and those around me?
Are you thinking of the publics future stake in the above? Or only
the businesses involved?
Microsoft is a menace. I have software which I shall never be
able to use because the new software sucks and old hardware and
software is very difficult to come by (and usually much to degraded
to be very useful). New hardware is to fast for my old software and
Windows software does not work on Apple products without bridging
software... like I need to learn a third computer language.
Mostly it is the company's potential to take over various
portions of the communications arena. It is a subtle and very slow
process. Like a company with many like subsidiaries (Time Warner
owns DC comics and many other book houses), Microsoft links up with
various computer and communication areas. Nothing to arouse overt
suspicion... Oh, they have an internet browser bundled for free!
Wow! They even have their own internet service!
How long before the Windows OS allows 'special'
features for their other software (Word, Office, Internet Explorer)
that say Apple's Os cannot give (Apple has versions of Word, Office
and IE)? How long before that free browser allows
"special" features for MSN? How long before Microsoft's
in house games for the Xbox are available only through MSN and over
the internet for half or a third the total price as a game created
by an outside company? How long before the Xbox becomes more popular
for tele-communications then even a personal computer and Microsoft
starts demanding payment from Dell and Gateway for all those things
which were once free?
Frightening in a paranoid sort of way... is it not? (OK... this
went on waaaay to long...)
Look at all the areas which Microsoft could walk into. See the
potential gains they could make at the expense of the consumers
choice.
Thankee,
RC Hagy Stamford,
Vermont 05352-9531
MTC-00021560
From: Tom Field
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern: Isn't it time we stop wasting tax payer
money against Microsoft and look in the direction of Enron and
terrorists in the United States where Americans are really
suffering.
Tom Field
Marlboro, NJ
MTC-00021561
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00am
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,
Howard Lewin
3 Katherine
Placitas, NM 87043
MTC-00021562
From: Kevin Klug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I applaud the actions taken against Microsoft, but I feel that
the settlement being talk about is way too lenient. The issue is not
simply that Microsoft has an unfair advantage because of their many
different product lines. The issue is the tactics that Microsoft
employed to make Windows the dominant operating system.
Back in the early Windows 95 days, Microsoft would not sell any
copies of Windows to computer makers, unless they agreed to sell a
copy of Windows with every PC. This forced buyers to purchase
Windows, even if they wanted to use another Os like OS2, which was a
much better operating system. Obviously this prevented the fair
competition of other operating systems. This case should be about
punishment for the wrongs of the company, not simply an attempt to
keep the company from doing more wrongs.
Thank you for your time.
Kevin Klug
Colorado Springs, CO
MTC-00021563
From: Greika, Christian J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to offer complaint against Section III.D of the
proposed final judgment. Section III.D reads as follows:
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 requirements laid forth in this section are insufficient to
promote equality in
[[Page 27035]]
competing offerings' time to adapt their products in time to compete
with new releases of Microsoft Middleware or to support a new
version of Windows. Section III.H.3 also states the competing
middleware can be locked out of competition by failing to meet
"unspecified" technical requirements seven months prior
to the the final beta test of a new version of Windows. Why are the
requirements unspecified? This opens up opportunities to set demands
too taxing for competitors to meet in the shortened time frame made
available to them by the fact that they are introduced to the APIs
related to new versions of Windows only after said new version has
been released to 150,000 beta testers. Microsoft has, under this
ruling, the full capability to "plan" development such
that they can maximize the probability that competitors will be
unable to meet said "unspecified" technical requirements
prior to the final beta test. There is no requirement for Microsoft
to announce planned beta release dates, so in effect the seven
months requirement is unnecessary. You might as well make it one
day. A more stringent and fair requirement would be to require
Microsoft to publish proposed beta release dates and adjust the time
requirement to meet the "unspecified" technical
requirements to the date of the beta release. This would provide a
more equitable environment, one in which Microsoft still maintains
its competitive advantage, but one that gives competitors an
opportunity to compete. The current proposal offers Microsoft the
chance to erase competition without ever having to compete.
MTC-00021564
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:01am
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,
george feddirko
1641 fairmount ave
vineeland, NJ 08361
MTC-00021565
From: John E Quigley II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in support of Microsoft, and believe that Microsoft has
done very little to hurt the industry, and has done a lot to help.
Standardizing the basics has made thing much better, and it is now
cheaper and easier to purchase the OS, then it was to purchase the
parts and pieces and deal with the issues to get it running. You are
doing a injustice and doing nothing more then hurting the economy
and a company that has done a lot for the country and industry that
it is in. As a network Engineer Microsoft has made my life much
easier, and my family loves the easy of use and functionality and
integration of components.
John E Quigley II
http://www.johnnyq.com
MTC-00021566
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam;
I am writing in opposition to the proposed anti-trust settlement
with Microsoft.
Please excuse my need to state my qualifications so that you
understand the reasons for my opposition. I am a graduate of MIT
(1983) in Computer Science with 18 years of industry experience, so
I feel competent to offer informed comments on the technical aspects
(e.g., what qualifies as "innovation") of the case. I am
also an owner of a 45 person, Subchapter S software company which
develops for both Microsoft operating systems and various UNIX
(e.g., Linux) operating systems, so I feel competent to offer
informed comments on the economic aspects of the case.
With regard to technical matters, no company has acted more
aggressively to quash technical innovation in the computer field. It
is particularly surreal to hear Microsoft stay "on
message" about "innovation," yet be unable to
state clearly a single technical innovation they have produced
(rather than bought or imitated).
If there is a single point I would have you understand, it is
this: Microsoft acts only to defend its dominant market share. It
does NOT proactively innovate. It REACTIVELY identifies innovative
threats. It then leverages its market dominance to kill the
innovation/threat by any means necessary, whether via dumping
software, via secret contracts, via lobbying, and at least once via
sabotage. To wit:
(1) Threat: the Netscape platform. It is well-known how
Microsoft cost-shifted from their OS and office suite monopolies and
"dumped" their browser on the market, and made it
impossible for consumers to avoid it, and made it impossible for PC
makers to include Netscape. As you know, Netscape is now irrelevant
as a browser.
(2) Threat: the "write once, run anywhere" Java
platform. Microsoft made incompatible changes to the platform, and
they now refuse to ship a Java implementation, and they make it hard
for consumers to receive the Sun one via PC manufacturers or via
download (it is a huge download). They also cost-shifting from its
monopolies and dumping a Java-like "C#" programming
platform on the market.
(3) Threat: increasingly powerful game platforms from Sony and
Nintendo. Microsoft is cost-shifting from its monopolies to
subsidize the "XBox" and drive these consoles from the
marketplace.
(4) Threat: competitive DOS implementations, sabotage for which
is described in detail at: http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/
ddj9309d/9309d.htm
While I urge you in the strongest possible way to take the time
to read a single, simple web page describing such an egregious abuse
of market power, I shall summarize. Microsoft wrote code in Windows
3.1 to try and detect any competitor's underlying DOS, and then
notify the user that there is a "Non fatal error" so as
to discourage use of a perfectly serviceable alternative. They
covered their tracks by encrypting the code and disabling
breakpoints (use of a debugger) so their act would not be exposed to
the world for the anti-competitive act it is. As you know, these
competitors were eliminated.
(5) Threat: the DOJ. Please forgive me if I have my facts wrong,
but it is my understanding that Microsoft lobbied to have the DOJ
budget cut after the anti-trust action began. I have read this in
may sources, but here is one for your convenience: http://
zdnet.com.com/2100-11-501473.html?legacy=zdnn No one can
protect us consumers but you. It is the function of government to
protect citizens from threats both external and internal. This is a
dire internal threat to the health of the software market. I offer
the following comments, suggestions, and pleas:
(1) Such anti-competitive, anti Free Market, and thus anti-
consumer behavior must not be allowed to continue.
(2) Microsoft must not be allowed to continue to enjoy the
market advantages and other economic benefits (e.g., approximately
$35 Billion in cash on hand) resulting from its illegal activities,
and be able to leverage them to quash threats/innovations. To do so
is unjust. I fail to understand how this is different from letting a
convicted serial burglar keep all his ill-gotten goods when it is
know exactly from whence they came. By themselves,
"conduct" remedies on future behavior will not remove
the illegally-obtained market and economic dominance of Microsoft.
(3) Neither will the lack of punishment for past illegal acts
provide any deterrent whatsoever to future anti-competitive acts.
Microsoft boasts about its "hard core" tactics, and the
"hard core" way to think about conduct remedies is that
they will continue to be able to benefit from illegal
acts-they just might not be able to repeat them.
(4) Given that Microsoft has upwards of a 90% market share,
there is NO competition left in the marketplace. Competition must be
restored to protect consumers. Conduct remedies on future behavior
will not restore competition.
(5) Many technical innovations come from venture-funded
startups. Few VCs will now fund start-ups that will innovate if the
innovation in any way threatens Microsoft's monopolies (they know
what I said above-in order to survive, you must not be seen by
Microsoft as a threat): http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/
29375-vc29.shtml You must act to restore
[[Page 27036]]
innovation by stopping this anti-competitive, anti-innovation
behavior and restore faith in the free markets by those who help
make free markets. Any penalty must be severe enough to do so. The
current settlement does none of these things.
I apologize for the length of this message, but even so, it is
ruthlessly abbreviated. Please, please feel free to call me if there
is anything I can do to provide further information.
Very Truly Yours,
John Morrison
Chief Technical Officer
p.s., home phone s 978-392-9315, cell phone is
617-388-3071
John Morrison
MAK Technologies Inc.
185 Alewife Brook Parkway, Cambridge, MA 02138
http://www.mak.com/
vox:617-876-8085 x115
fax:617-876-9208
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00021569
From: Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54am
Subject: AOL Lawsuit
Dear Sirs,
I find it very disturbing that once again Microsoft has to focus
on legal battles instead of their efforts to bring computing ease to
the masses. The Microsoft Internet Explorer Web browser is-and
has for years, now-been the superior platform from which one
can view and develop applications for the World Wide Web. I believe
that the DOJ should dismiss this unfounded complaint immediately.
Thank you for your time,
Owen A. Robbins-Network Consultant
MTC-00021570
From: David Steere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-against
I think the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case
will not dissuade nor prevent Microsoft from taking monopolistic
actions in the future.
In particular, the settlement does not:
-prevent Microsoft from using its current monopolies to gain
future monopolies in new areas. For example, Microsoft currently
seems to be attempting to use its windows operating system monopoly
to push the WMA digital music encoding standard instead of MP3.
-open APIs within the operating system, such as the file
system driver APIs.
-open Middleware APIs.
david.
MTC-00021571
From: Steve Sinnott
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my objections to the proposed Microsoft
Settlement, as proposed by the Department of Justice. On the
surface, this appears to be a valid settlement. As they say, though,
the devil is in the details. The qualifiers that have been placed on
the settlement would make it essentially useless in and of
themselves, and make the settlement fatally flawed when combined
with the lack of a valid dispute mechanism. It will not limit
Microsoft's actions, it will not open Microsoft to competition, and
it does not punish them; indeed, it makes their monopoly a defacto
government-sanctioned one.
A single example of this is in 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."
The restrictions of (a) are such that Microsoft is not required
to disclose anything that they do not wish to, just as the existing
case is an outgrowth of poor grammar and definitions of the Consent
Decree.
This particular section would, in fact, serve to maintain
Microsoft's Operating System monopoly in and of itself. In modern
offices, the capability of sharing files is arguably the single most
important use of servers.
Microsoft Operating Systems use a common protocol, called
"SMB", for the file sharing, as does almost every other
Operating System. However, Microsoft added an authentication system
to their clients, so that their Operating Systems can only share
files with servers running Microsoft Server Operating System
software, unless non-trivial changes are made to the configuration
of the Operating System of the client. This effectively prevents
companies from moving to non-Microsoft Servers in their offices.
Several of the alternatives to Microsoft have requested information
on the APIs and Authenication systems that Microsoft uses, and
Microsoft has refused to provide the data in a useful manner. Under
this settlement agreement, Microsoft would be specifically allowed
to not provide the data necessary to open the server market up to
non-Microsoft servers.
This specific example, and with the lack of a reasonable dispute
mechanism whereby Microsoft's interpretation of the proposed
settlement agreement can be over-ridden, combine to make the
settlement effectively useless in terms of restricting, much less
punishing, Microsoft's behavior. The proposed settlement is far from
being in the national interest, and rejection of it is amply
supported by the trial record, the appeals court judgement, and the
other comments submitted to the court.
Thank you,
Stephen Sinnott
MTC-00021572
From: Pinkie Achor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Gentlemen-
Enough is enough. Please stop spending OUR tax dollars and those
of thousands of other taxpayers in this microsoft battle.
Thank you-
Louise F. Achor
Robert F. Achor
[email protected]
MTC-00021573
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question: There are two men, both
extremely wealthy.
One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of
dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the
case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more money
chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin
Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT! 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,
Mr. Steven D. Northup
3663 Buchanan Street
Space 124
Riverside, CA 92503
MTC-00021574
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:02am
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
[[Page 27037]]
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 F. LOCKEY
15115 MORNING TREE
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78232
MTC-00021575
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04am
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,
C. A. Stubbs
207 Highview
San Antonio, TX 78228-1944
MTC-00021576
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07am
Subject: microsoft
Microsoft products work and are affordable. They built a better
product and serviced what they sold. I'd encourage the lessor
penalty that can be imposed.
Rosetta Land
1118 Linwood Dr.
Tallahassee, FL
MTC-00021577
From: Frank (038) Debbie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I FAVOR the Settlement!
Let's stop wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous litigation.
Respectfully,
Frank Hobin
409 S. Beech St.
Winnsboro, Tx. 75494
MTC-00021578
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question: There are two men, both
extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives
billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That
being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama
bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT! 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,
Mrs. Carole R. Northup
3663 Buchanan Street
Space 124
Riverside, CA 92503
MTC-00021579
From: rich cottle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do NOT agree with this settlement!
Sincerely,
RIchard Cottle
[email protected]
MTC-00021580
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:02am
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,
Bill Baker
318 Rash Ln. Terrell, TX 75160-1418
MTC-00021581
From: Michael Houda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Ms. Hesse:
The proposed Microsoft (MS) anti-trust settlement does NOT
remedy the problems with this company. Splitting the company into 2
companies, one a SYSTEM software company [Windows] and the other
strictly an APPLICATIONS software company [Office, Internet
Explorer, etc.], would solve most of the problems because MS [System
Software/Windows] would then have to open up the system software to
their APPLICATIONS company [Office, Internet Explorer,etc.] as well
as to other COMPETING software applications companies.
As it stands now, MS is currently violating previous orders of
the court. MS cannot be trusted. By separating MS into at least 2
companies, they are forced into "playing fair".
Sincerely,
Michael Houda
Senior Engineering Technician
P.O. Box 813
Capitola, CA 95010-0813
MTC-00021582
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05am
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,
LOIS Fink
912 WHITEHEATH COURT
nashville, TN 37221
MTC-00021583
From: Scott Clausen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:06am
Subject: Do It Right!
*This message was transferred with a trial version of
CommuniGate(tm) Pro* I am a computer professional who uses Linux,
Macs, Unix, and Windows. I do not begrudge
[[Page 27038]]
Microsoft success as a company. I do, however, believe they need to
be held accountable for their criminal behavior as shown in the
recent court decision.
The settlement, as currently proposed, does nothing to prevent
them from continuing to do business in a manner harmful to the
industry and society as a whole. By implementing the proposed
settlement you will have signaled to all that mediocrity is the
highest point we will strive for in this country. Microsoft has
shown that they do not innovate but copy those companies that do
excel and then dominate the market through illegal practices. If you
allow this settlement to occur you will have shown that what is
right does not matter, only the power of the dollar.
Thank you for your time.
Scott Clausen
Edgewood, WA
MTC-00021584
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04am
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,
Lonnie Wendling
1614 Petri Place
San Jose, CA 95118
MTC-00021586
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:03am
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,
Frank Santoro
181 Bay 46th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11214
MTC-00021587
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am attaching my Comments as a Text File called "MS-
DOJ.txt".
Daniel Maddux
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Proposed MICROSOFT Antitrust Settlement
I am submitting these comments regarding the November 01, 2001
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice
("DOJ"). For the following reasons, I think the
settlement is NOT in the public interest and should be rejected.
Furthermore, I think the DOJ should pursue Judge Jackson's remedy of
breaking MICROSOFT into 2 companies. I have divided my comments into
2 sections: General and Specific Objections. My General Objections
address the proposed settlement in general. My Specific Objections
parse the proposed Final Judgment line by line.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The proposed Final Judgment defeats the DOJ's goal in settling
this case. Allegedly the DOJ is settling this case to devote more
time and resources to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (see
"Circumstances Had Role in U.S.-Microsoft Deal" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32665-2001Nov2?
language=printer). However, the proposed Final Judgment requires
more time and resources to implement than Judge Jackson's remedy of
splitting MICROSOFT into 2 companies. This proposed Final Judgment
requires the DOJ to monitor MICROSOFT'S compliance with this
proposed Final Judgment and prosecute MICROSOFT when it fails to
comply with this proposed Final Judgment. Monitoring MICROSOFT'S
compliance with this proposed Final Judgment and prosecuting
MICROSOFT when it fails to comply with this proposed Final Judgment
will require the DOJ to devote additional time and resources to this
case. Splitting MICROSOFT into 2 companies does not require the DOJ
to monitor MICROSOFT'S compliance with this proposed Final Judgment
and prosecute MICROSOFT when it fails to comply with this proposed
Final Judgment. Since splitting MICROSOFT into 2 companies does not
require the DOJ to monitor MICROSOFT'S compliance with this proposed
Final Judgment and prosecute MICROSOFT when it fails to comply with
this proposed Final Judgment, splitting up MICROSOFT does not
require the DOJ to devote additional time and resources to this
case. Since this proposed Final Judgment requires the DOJ to devote
more time and resources to this case than Judge Jackson's remedy of
splitting MICROSOFT into 2 companies, this proposed Final Judgment
defeats the DOJ's goal in settling this case.
The proposed Final Judgment fails to protect competition. The
goal of United States" Antitrust Law is to protect
competition. Some means of protecting competition from the antitrust
violations of a monopolist like MICROSOFT are:
* punishing the monopolist
* deterring other parties from violating the law.
This proposed Final Judgment fails to accomplish any of these
means.
First, this proposed Final Judgment fails to punish MICROSOFT.
This proposed Final Judgment does not require MICROSOFT to pay a
fine. Nor does it require MICROSOFT to reimburse purchasers of
WINDOWS 98 upgrades for the $40 monopoly tax that it imposed on
these customers (see Paragraphs 63-65 on Pages 32-33 of
Judge Jackson's FINDINGS OF FACT at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-
findings2.pdf). Nor does it require MICROSOFT to pay restitution to
NETSCAPE (now a division of AOL) for the harm it inflicted on
NETSCAPE's Web Browser (see Pages 177-190 of Judge Jackson's
FINDINGS OF FACT). Nor does it require MICROSOFT to pay restitution
to SUN MICROSYSTEMS for the harm it inflicted on SUN's JAVA software
(See Pages 190-202 of Judge Jackson's FINDINGS OF FACT). Nor
does it require MICROSOFT to disgorge its unlawfully obtained
profits from these antitrust violations (a corporation enjoying a
Rate of Return over 30% is generally considered a monopoly. Thus,
MICROSOFT should be required to pay the government all of its
profits exceeding a 30% Rate of Return starting from the filing date
of this case). Nor does it prevent MICROSOFT from leveraging its
monopoly in the PC market into other markets, like the Server
Market, the Handheld Computer Market, the Television Set Top Box
Market, the game console market, the PDA Market, the Telephone
Market (particularly the Cell Phone Market), or other markets. Nor
does it prevent MICROSOFT from bundling its web browser, streaming
media player, or other software into its operating systems.
Nor does it prohibit MICROSOFT from adding proprietary
extensions to open standards like KERBEROS to prevent
interoperability with other operating systems. Furthermore, every
restriction in this proposed Final Judgment contains an exception
that allows MICROSOFT to continue it current business practices
unchanged (See, for example, "States Scorning U.S.-Microsoft
Deal" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp- dyn/
A27205-2001Nov1?language=printer, "Accord Called Win For
Software Giant" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/
A27196-2001Nov1? language=printer, "Settlement is
"a reward, not a remedy" at http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-202-7763195.html, "Friends, foes see
no change"
[[Page 27039]]
at http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/306/business/
Friends-foes-see-no-chang eP.shtml,
"MS-DOJ Pact Disappoints" at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/
htx/zd/20011109/tc/ms-doj-pact-disappoints-
1.html, and "Not even a slap on the wrist for bully
Microsoft" at http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/
columns/lenard8.htm). For example, III.H.2. allows end users or OEMs
to designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in
place of a Microsoft Middleware Product. However, VI.N. defines
"Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" as software
"... (ii) of which at least one million copies were
distributed in the United States within the previous year".
Since almost *no* non- MICROSOFT software (except possibly AOL
Instant Messenger) had a distribution of at least one million copies
in the United States within the previous year, III.H.2. does not
require MICROSOFT to change their current practice of preventing end
users and OEMs from designating Non- MICROSOFT Middleware Products
in place of MICROSOFT Middleware Products.
Finally, this proposed Final Judgment does not even require
MICROSOFT to allocute to the charges brought against it. Since this
proposed Final Judgment does not punish MICROSOFT *in any way*, this
proposed Final Judgment does not protect competition.
This proposed Final Judgment does not deter other parties from
violating the law. A judgment should encourage parties to obey the
law. However, this proposed Final Judgment has the opposite effect;
it encourages parties to violate the law. Since this proposed Final
Judgment does not punish MICROSOFT *in any way*, other monopolists
are encouraged to violate United States Antitrust Law, knowing that
they too will not be punished. Since this proposed Final Judgment
will encourage other monopolists to violate our antitrust laws, it
does not deter other parties from violating the antitrust laws.
Since this proposed Final Judgment does not deter other parties from
violating the antitrust laws, this proposed Final Judgment does not
protect competition. Further, this proposed Final Judgment
encourages crackers (malicious programmers who break into other
people'e computers) to violate the law and crack computers running
MICROSOFT software. If caught, they can defend themselves by
claiming they cannot obtain justice from MICROSOFT in a court of
law. Also, other nations will refuse to honor extradition treaties
with the United States to extradite crackers who attack our
computers, citing this proposed Final Judgment as evidence that
their citizens cannot obtain a fair trial in the United States.
Since this proposed Final Judgment will encourage crackers to crack
computers running MICROSOFT software and other nations to dishonor
extradition treaties with the United States, this proposed Final
Judgment will encourage persons and companies to violate our laws.
Finally, this proposed Final Judgment is an illusory and
ineffective remedy because, in practice, the DOJ will not enforce
it. As stated above, this proposed Final Judgment requires the DOJ
to monitor MICROSOFT'S compliance with this proposed Final Judgment
and prosecute MICROSOFT when it fails to comply with this proposed
Final Judgment.
Also as stated above, allegedly, the DOJ is settling this case
to devote more time and resources to the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks. Since the DOJ is settling this case to devote
more time and resources to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
the DOJ does not want to expend any more time and resources on this
case. Futhermore, President Bush is a Republican. Republican
Presidents and administrations historically are pro-business and do
*not* enforce the antitrust laws.
The fact that the DOJ surrendered the remedy of splitting
MICROSOFT into 2 companies, combined with the DOJ's capitulation to
this proposed Final Judgment, indicates that the Bush administration
will not enforce the antitrust laws, or this proposed Final
Judgment. Since the DOJ does not want to expend any more time and
resources on this case, and the Bush administration will not enforce
the antitrust laws, or this proposed Final Judgment, the DOJ will
not enforce it against MICROSOFT. Since the DOJ will not enforce
this proposed Final Judgment against MICROSOFT, this proposed Final
Judgment is an illusory and ineffectice remedy.
Since this proposed Final Judgment does not accomplish the DOJ's
goal in settling this case or protect competition, and is in
practice an illusory and ineffective remedy, this proposed Final
Judgment is not in the public interest. Since this proposed Final
Judgment is not in the public interest, this proposed Final Judgment
should be rejected. Instead the DOJ should pursue, and the Court
should uphold, Judge Jackson's remedy of splitting MICROSOFT into 2
companies.
MICROSOFT has consistently violated United States Antitrust Law.
MICROSOFT has illegally tied licenses of its operating systems
to OEMs" sales of processors in computers (i.e., "per-
processor" licenses. See THE MICROSOFT FILE: THE SECRET CASE
AGAINST BILL GATES by Wendy Goldman Rohm, Times Business, copyright
1998, at Pages 41-42, 67-68, 73, and 83-85). When
the first antitrust case settlement in 1995 prohibited per-
processor licenses, MICROSOFT switched to illegally tying licenses
of its operating systems to OEMs" sales of computer systems
(i.e., "per- system" licenses. See THE MICROSOFT FILE at
Pages 190-191 and 203-206). MICROSOFT has continually
engaged in "vaporware" to kill competing products (See
MEMORANDUM OPINION of February 14, 1995, by Judge Stanley Sporkin,
Page 35, at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0100/0102.htm).
MICROSOFT has also engaged in predatory pricing by illegally
tying/bundling its Middleware Products with its Operating System
Products to kill competing products (MICROSOFT illegally tied sales
of
WINDOWS to MS-DOS; see THE MICROSOFT FILE at Pages 114 and
192-198.
MICROSOFT illegally tied sales of WINDOWS to MICR0SOFT OFFICE
SUITE; see THE MICROSOFT FILE at Page 159. MICROSOFT illegally tied
its web browser, INTERNET EXPLORER, with its Operating System,
WINDOWS 98, to kill the competing web browser, Netscape
COMMUNICATOR; see THE MICROSOFT FILE at Pages 268-269 and
274-275. MICROSOFT illegally tied its streaming media player,
WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER, with its Operating System, WINDOWS XP, to kill
the competing streaming media player, Real Networks REAL PLAYER). By
committing these acts, MICROSOFT has consistently violated the
Antitrust Laws.
MICROSOFT violated the first antitrust settlement. MICROSOFT
provoked this antitrust case by violating the first antitrust
settlement.
MICROSOFT used its monopoly power in the PC market to coerce the
computer industry to use MICROSOFT's web browser,INTERNET EXPLORER,
and not the competing web browser, Netscape COMMUNICATOR.
Specifically, MICROSOFT used predatory pricing (by illegally tying
its web browser with its operating system to force Netscape to give
away its web browser for free. See THE MICROSOFT FILE at Pages
268-269 and 274-275) and exclusionary contracts
requiring IHVs, ISVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs to use INTERNET EXPLORER
and not COMMUNICATOR. By using its monopoly power in the PC market
to coerce the computer industry to use MICROSOFT's web
browser,INTERNET EXPLORER, and not the competing web browser,
Netscape COMMUNICATOR, MICROSOFT violated the first antitrust
settlement. MICROSOFT will violate this proposed Final Judgment and
continue violating the antitrust laws. MICROSOFT's illegal
concentration of monopoly profits make it the most highly valued
corporation in the world. Since MICROSOFT's illegal concentration of
monopoly profits make it the most highly valued corporation in the
world, MICROSOFT can drag out any enforcement action that the DOJ
brings against MICROSOFT for violating this proposed Final Judgment.
In other words, MICROSOFT can simply outspend the DOJ and thereby
avoid punishment for violating the antitrust laws. Since MICROSOFT
can drag out any enforcement action that the DOJ brings against
MICROSOFT for violating this proposed Final Judgment, MICROSOFT can,
and will, violate this proposed Final Judgment.
To stop MICROSOFT from violating the antitrust laws, it must be
split into 2 or more separate companies. As stated above,
MICROSOFT's illegal concentration of monopoly profits allow it to
violate the antitrust laws with impunity. Since MICROSOFT's illegal
concentration of monopoly profits allow it to violate the antitrust
laws with impunity, the only way to stop MICROSOFT from violating
the antitrust laws is to disperse its illegal concentration of
monopoly profits. And the only way to disperse MICROSOFT's illegal
concentration of monopoly profits is to split the company into 2 or
more separate companies. Thus, the only way to stop MICROSOFT from
violating the antitrust laws is to split it into 2 or more
companies. Since the only way to stop MICROSOFT from violating the
antitrust laws is to split it into
[[Page 27040]]
2 or more companies, the remedy in this case should be splitting
MICROSOFT into 2 or more companies.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
1.Proposed Final Judgment, paragraph 2:
The second paragraph is too lenient to MICROSOFT. The second
paragraph states:
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; Judge
Jackson in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law found that
MICROSOFT was a monopoly and that MICROSOFT did abuse its monopoly
power to violate United States antitrust law (see FINDINGS OF FACT
at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-findings2.pdf and CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND ORDER at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-conclusions.pdf).
Furthermore, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia upheld these findings and conclusions. Since both the
District Court and the Court of Appeals held that MICROSOFT was a
monopoly and did abuse its monopoly power, the least that the DOJ
should do is require MICROSOFT to allocute to these facts and
conclusions of law. Optimally, MICROSOFT should allocute to all of
the facts and conclusions of law contained in the DOJ's original
complaint which initiated this case. Allowing MICROSOFT to settle
this case without admitting that it is a monopoly which abused its
monopoly power is like settling with Osama bin Laden and not
requiring him to admit that he bombed the World Trade Centers. Since
both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that MICROSOFT
was a monopoly and did abuse its monopoly power, allowing MICROSOFT
to settle this case without allocuting to the facts and conclusions
of law is too lenient to MICROSOFT.
For this proposed Final Judgment to be in the public interest,
MICROSOFT should be *required* to allocute to Judge Jackson's
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Since MICROSOFT should be
*required* to allocute to Judge Jackson's Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, the second paragraph should state:
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment constitutes an admission by
MICROSOFT of all facts contained in Judge Jackson's Findings of
Facts and all conclusions of law contained in Judge Jackson's
Conclusions of Law; .
2.III.Prohibited Conduct, A. First Paragraph
The first paragraph of III.A. is incomplete and thus ineffective
as written. III.A. prohibits MICROSOFT from retaliating against OEMs
for using Non-MICROSOFT software. However, III.A. does not prohibit
MICROSOFT from making its software incompatible with Non-MICROSOFT
software. Specifically, III.A. does not prohibit MICROSOFT from
making its software prevent the use of other operating systems or
middleware running on a PC. In the past, MICROSOFT has written
Windows NT (later Windows 2000 and now Windows XP) to prevent OEMs
and end users from installing LINUX or the BSD operating systems
(FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD) on the same hard drive and/or
computer. Furthermore, MICROSOFT wrote its Windows 98 upgrade to
break the Dynamically-Linked Libraries for competing middleware
(like WordPerfect Office Suite) so that the competing middleware
would not work. Since MICROSOFT has previously written their Windows
Operating Systems Products to prevent Non- MICROSOFT operating
systems and middleware from working on the same hard drive and/or
computer, and continues to do so with Windows XP, this proposed
Final Judgment should prohibit MICROSOFT from writing its software
to prevent Non-MICROSOFT operating systems and middleware from
working on the same hard drive and/or computer. Since this proposed
Final Judgment does not prohibit MICROSOFT from writing its software
to prevent Non-MICROSOFT operating systems and middleware from
working on the same hard drive and/or computer, III.A. is incomplete
and thus ineffective.
For the first paragraph of III.A. to be in the public interest,
the DOJ should rewrite it to expressly prohibit MICROSOFT from
writing its software to prevent Non-MICROSOFT operating systems and
middleware from working on the same hard drive and/or computer. In
particular, MICROSOFT should be prohibited from making its software
incompatible with LINUX, the BSD operating systems, Netscape
COMMUNICATOR, the OPERA Web Browser, AOL Instant Messenger and
related software, SAMBA, and any other Non-MICROSOFT software which
runs on a PC.
05--------
3.III.Prohibited Conduct, A. Second Paragraph (from Page 4) The
second paragraph of III.A. is incomplete as written. III.A. second
paragraph (continuing from Page 4 onto Page 5) states in part:
...Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a
Windows Operating System Product without having first given the
Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the proposed
termination and not less than thirty days" opportunity to
cure. ...
As stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph,
both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found MICROSOFT a
monopolist which abused its monopoly power. Since both the District
Court and the Court of Appeals found MICROSOFT a monopolist which
abused its monopoly power, the DOJ and the District Court should
monitor MICROSOFT's future behavior very carefully for compliance
with this proposed Final Judgment. In particular, this proposed
Final Judgment should require MICROSOFT to provide the DOJ and the
District Court with copies of any such notice of non-compliance sent
to a Covered OEM. Furthermore, these notices should be published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER to provide the public with notice of these
events. Since this proposed Final Judgment does not require
MICROSOFT to provide the DOJ and the District Court with copies of
any such notice of non-compliance sent to a Covered OEM, it is
incomplete.
For the second paragraph of III.A. to be in the public interest,
it must require MICROSOFT to provide the DOJ and the District Court
with copies of any such notice of non-compliance sent to a Covered
OEM. Thus, the second paragraph of III.A. should be rewritten as
follows:
...Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a
Windows Operating System Product without having first given the
Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the proposed
termination and not less than thirty days" opportunity to
cure. Microsoft shall provide the DOJ and the District Court with
copies of this written notice, which shall be published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER. ... .
4.III.Prohibited Conduct, A. Third Paragraph
The third paragraph of III.A. contradicts the first paragraph of
III.A. The first paragraph of III.A. prohibits MICROSOFT from
retaliating against an OEM for using Non-MICROSOFT software. The
third paragraph allows MICROSOFT to reward OEMs based on "the
absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution,
promotion, or licensing of that MICROSOFT product or service".
However, OEMs have a limited amount of money. Since OEMs only have a
limited amount of money, an OEM can only increase its promotion/
usage of MICROSOFT products and services by decreasing its
promotion/usage of Non-MICROSOFT products and services. Since an OEM
can only increase its promotion/usage of MICROSOFT products and
services by decreasing its promotion/usage of Non-MICROSOFT products
and services, the third paragraph of III.A. allows MICROSOFT to
reward OEMs who only use MICROSOFT products and services. By
rewarding OEMs who only use MICROSOFT products and services,
MICROSOFT punishes OEMs who do not use only MICROSOFT products and
services. Thus, the third paragraph of III.A. allows MICROSOFT to
retaliate against OEMs who use/promote Non-MICROSOFT products and
services. Since the third paragraph of III.A. allows MICROSOFT to
retaliate against OEMs who use/promote Non-MICROSOFT products and
services, and the first paragraph of III.A. prohibits MICROSOFT from
retaliating against OEMs who use/promote Non-MICROSOFT products and
services, the third paragraph of III.A. contradicts the first
paragraph of III.A.
For III.A. to be in the public interest, the third paragraph of
III.A. should be deleted from this proposed Final Judgment.
5.III.Prohibited Conduct, C. First Sentence The first sentence
of III.C. is incomplete and thus inadequate to protect competition.
The first sentence of III.C. states:
Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from
exercising any of the following options or alternatives: ...
This sentence is incomplete because it does not prohibit
MICROSOFT from restricting an OEM licensee's options or alternatives
by preferential treatment of an OEM licensee's competitors. For
example, MICROSOFT might inform an OEM licensee like COMPAQ that if
COMPAQ puts the AOL icon on its Windows desktop that MICROSOFT will
offer COMPAQ's competitors a discount on MICROSOFT's products and
services. Since MICROSOFT can restrict an OEM licensee's options or
alternatives by threatening to offer preferential treatment to an
OEM licensee's competitors, in addition to restricting an OEM
licensee's options or alternatives by
[[Page 27041]]
agreement, the first sentence of III.C. is incomplete and therefore
inadequate to protect an OEM licensee from exercising the options
and alternatives of III.C.
For the first sentence of III.C. to be in the public interest,
it should be rewritten as follows:
Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement *or by any other
means, including but not limited to, offering preferential treatment
to an OEM licensee's competitors*, any OEM licensee from exercising
any of the following options or alternatives: ...
----PAGE .
06-------
6.III.Prohibited Conduct, C. 1.
III.C.1. contains an exception which allows MICROSOFT to
continue its illegal business practices. The exception in III.C.1.
states: ...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, ... Although this exception requires
MICROSOFT's restrictions to be non- discriminatory with respect to
Non-MICROSOFT software, in practice MICROSOFT will claim that every
Non-MICROSOFT software product that MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does
not provide the requisite *particular type of functionality*. For
example, MICROSOFT claimed that its Internet Explorer web browser
was an integral part of Windows 98, providing a particular type of
functionality that could not be separated from the operating system
and the competing web browser, Netscape COMMUNICATOR, could not
provide. MICROSOFT claimed this to destroy the competing web
browser, Netscape COMMUNICATOR. Furthermore, MICROSOFT has bundled
its streaming media player software with Windows XP to destroy Real
Networks Real Player streaming media player. The fact that MICROSOFT
has already claimed that a Non-MICROSOFT software product that
MICROSOFT wished to destroy does not provide the requisite
particular type of functionality, and continues to do so, indicates
that they will use this exception to negate the prohibition of
III.C.1. This exception allows MICROSOFT to destroy any competing
software by modifying the Windows documentation to state that the
corresponding MICROSOFT software provides a particular type of
functionality. Since this exception allows MICROSOFT to destroy any
competing software by modifying the Windows documentation to state
that the corresponding MICROSOFT software provides a particular type
of functionality, this exception allows MICROSOFT to continue its
illegal business practices.
In practice, the condition placed upon this exception will not
be enforced. III.C.1. places the following condition upon the above-
stated exception:
...provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with
respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft products.
This condition is only effective if the DOJ polices MICROSOFT's
business practices and prevents MICROSOFT from applying
discriminatory restrictions on OEM licensees. In theory, the DOJ
will police MICROSOFT's business practices and prevent MICROSOFT
from applying discriminatory restrictions on OEM licensees. However,
the fact that the DOJ has surrendered the remedy of splitting
MICROSOFT into 2 companies, combined with the DOJ's acceptance of
this proposed Final Judgment, indicates that the DOJ will not police
MICROSOFT's business practices and prevent MICROSOFT from applying
discriminatory restrictions on OEM licensees. Furthermore, as stated
in the GENERAL OBJECTIONS, the DOJ does not want to expend
additional time and resources on this case. Since the DOJ will not
police MICROSOFT's business practices and prevent MICROSOFT from
applying discriminatory restrictions on OEM licensees, this
condition will not be enforced. Since this condition will not be
enforced, it is illusory and thus ineffective.
For III.C.1. to be in the public interest, the exception must be
deleted. In other words, III.C.1. should be rewritten as follows:
Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries
for, any Non-Microsoft Middleware or any product or service
(including but not limited to IAP products or services) that
distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft
Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a
Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts,
or menu entries for applications are generally displayed. .
7.III.Prohibited Conduct, C. 2.
As discussed above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., III.C.2.
contains an exception that allows MICROSOFT to continue its illegal
business practices. The exception in III.C.2. states:
... so long as such shortcuts do not impair the funtionality of
the user interface.
As stated above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., in practice
MICROSOFT will claim that every Non-MICROSOFT software product that
MICROSOFT wishes to destroy impairs the functionality of the user
interface. The Internet Explorer web browser is an example of this
behavior. Another example occurred in August 2001, when MICROSOFT
allowed OEMs to place whatever icons they chose on the Windows XP
desktop. COMPAQ, a MICROSOFT OEM licensee, subsequently placed the
AOL icon on the Windows XP desktop in place of the MSN icon.
MICROSOFT thereupon reversed its policy and stated that any OEM
placing a Non-MICROSOFT icon on the desktop must place the
corresponding MICROSOFT icon on the desktop as well. Thus,
MICROSOFT's past behavior indicates that they will claim that every
Non-MICROSOFT software product that MICROSOFT wishes to destroy
impairs the functionality of the user interface.
Also, as stated above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT's compliance with III.C.2. Since the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT's compliance with III.C.2., MICROSOFT is
free to prevent OEM licensees from installing or displaying Non-
MICROSOFT desktop shortcuts. Since MICROSOFT is free to prevent OEM
licensees from installing or displaying Non-MICROSOFT desktop
shortcuts, this exception allows MICROSOFT to continue its illegal
business practices. For III.C.2. to be in the public interest, the
exception must be deleted. In other words, III.C.2. should be
rewritten as follows:
Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing
and displaying on the desktop shortcuts of any size or shape.
8.III.Prohibited Conduct, C. 3.
As discussed about III.C.1. above, III.C.3. contains an
exception that allows MICROSOFT to continue its illegal business
practices. The exception in III.C.3. states: ... 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.
As stated above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., in practice
MICROSOFT will claim that every Non-MICROSOFT software product that
MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does not display a user interface of
similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the
corresponding MICROSOFT Middleware. For example, MICROSOFT inserted
code in Windows 3.1 that detected if a user was running DR-DOS (a
competitor to MS-DOS). Upon detecting DR-DOS, Windows 3.1 would warn
the user that DR-DOS *might be incompatible with Windows 3.1* and
the user should upgrade to MS-DOS (See THE MICROSOFT FILE: THE
SECRET CASE AGAINST BILL GATES by Wendy Goldman Rohm, ISBN
0-8129-2716-8, copyright 1998, Times Books, at
pages 102-104, 113-114, and 116-118). Since
MICROSOFT will claim that every Non-MICROSOFT software product that
MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does not display a user interface of
similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the
corresponding MICROSOFT Middleware, this exception will allow
MICROSOFT to prevent OEM licensees from launching automatically Non-
MICROSOFT Middleware at the conclusion of the initial boot sequence
or upon connection/disconnection to the Internet. Since this
exception will allow MICROSOFT to prevent OEM licensees from
launching automatically Non-MICROSOFT Middleware at the conclusion
of the initial boot sequence or upon connection/disconnection to the
Internet, this exception allows MICROSOFT to continue its illegal
business practices. Also, as stated above in OBJECTION 6. about
III.C.1., the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT's compliance with
III.C.3. Since the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT's compliance with
III.C.3., MICROSOFT is free to prevent OEM licensees from launching
automatically Non-MICROSOFT Middleware. Since MICROSOFT is free to
prevent OEM licensees from launching automatically Non-MICROSOFT
Middleware, this exception allows MICROSOFT to continue its illegal
business practices.
For III.C.3. to be in the public interest, this exception must
be deleted. In other words, III.C.3. should be rewritten as follows:
Lanuching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot
sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or
disconnections from the Internet, any Non-
[[Page 27042]]
Microsoft Middleware if Microsoft Middleware that provides similar
functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that
time.
9.III.Prohibited Conduct, C. 5.
The exception in III.C.5. allows MICROSOFT to continue its
illegal business practices. III.C.5. states:
Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer
*provided that the OEM complies with the reasonable technical
specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement
that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the
conclusion of any such offer*.
As stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., in practice
MICROSOFT will claim that every Non-MICROSOFT IAP offer that
MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does not comply with MICROSOFT's
reasonable technical specifications. As stated above in OBJECTION 8.
III.C.3., MICROSOFT inserted code in Windows 3.1 suggesting to users
that DR-DOS does not meet MICROSOFT's technical requirements.
Further, after negotiations between MICROSOFT and AOL broke down in
August 2001, MICROSOFT made Windows XP incompatible with AOL's
internet software. The fact that MICROSOFT has made their Windows
Operating System Products incompatible with competing products
indicates that MICROSOFT will use the exception in III.C.5. to claim
that competing IAP offers from AOL, other IAPs, or OEMs does not
meet MICROSOFT's reasonable technical requirements. Since MICROSOFT
will use the exception in III.C.5. to claim that competing IAP
offers from AOL, other IAPs, or OEMs does not meet MICROSOFT's
reasonable technical requirements, this exception allows MICROSOFT
to continue its illegal business practices.
Also, as stated above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT's compliance with III.C.5. Since the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT's compliance with III.C.5., MICROSOFT is
free to prevent OEM licensees from presenting their own IAP offers
in the initial boot sequence. Since MICROSOFT is free to prevent OEM
licensees from presenting their own IAP offers in the initial boot
sequence, this exception allows MICROSOFT to continue its illegal
business practices. For III.C.5. to be in the public interest, this
exception must be deleted. In other words, III.C.5. should be
rewritten as follows:
Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer. .
10.III.Prohibited Conduct, D.
The deadline stated in the first sentence for MICROSOFT to
release its APIs and related Documentation to third parties is too
long. The first sentence of III.D. states in relevant part:
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,
... the APIs and related Documentation that are used by
Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System
Product. Currently, the computer industry is operating on Internet
time. In Internet time, 3 months is considered equivalent to a
normal year. Since MICROSOFT, like its competitors in the computer
industry, operates on Internet time, allowing MICROSOFT up to 12
months to disclose their APIs and related Documentation is
equivalent to giving MICROSOFT a 3 year head start in developing
Middleware for Windows XP and its successors. Furthermore,
MICROSOFT's Middleware programmers already have access to these APIs
and related Documentation prior to the release of these Windows
Operating System Products. Since MICROSOFT's Middleware programmers
already have access to these APIs and related Documentation prior to
the release of these Windows Operating System Products, and allowing
MICROSOFT up to 12 months to disclose their APIs and related
Documentation is equivalent to giving MICROSOFT a 3 year head start
in developing Middleware for its Windows Operating System Products,
this deadline effectively prevents third parties from developing
competing Middleware for MICROSOFT's Windows Operating System
Products. Since this deadline effectively prevents third parties
from developing competing Middleware for MICROSOFT's Windows
Operating System Products, the 12 month deadline for MICROSOFT to
release its APIs and related Documentation is too long. Since the 12
month deadline for MICROSOFT to release its APIs and related
Documentation is too long, this 12 month deadline should be
shortened to 3 months. For this part of III.D. to be in the public
interest, this deadline should be changed from 12 months to 3
months. In other words, the first sentence of III.D. should be
rewritten as:
Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for
Windows XP or *3* months after the submission of this Final Judgment
to the Court,
11.III.Prohibited Conduct, D. The condition placed upon
releasing MICROSOFT's APIs is too lenient to MICROSOFT. The first
sentence of III.D. states in relevant part:
... Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and
OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
Operating System Product, ...
As stated above in OBJECTION 1 regarding the seond paragraph,
MICROSOFT lost this case. Both Judge Jackson and the Court of
Appeals held that MICROSOFT was a monopoly and that it abused its
monopoly power. Furthermore, as stated in the GENERAL OBJECTIONS,
MICROSOFT has consistently violated the antitrust laws. Since both
Judge Jackson and the Court of Appeals held that MICROSOFT was a
monopoly and that it abused its monopoly power, and MICROSOFT has
consistently violated the antitrust laws, the DOJ should not be
appeasing MICROSOFT by limiting the scope of use of MICROSOFT's APIs
and related Documentation. Since the DOJ should not be appeasing
MICROSOFT by limiting the scope of use of MICROSOFT's APIs and
related Documentation, this limitation on third parties" right
to use MICROSOFT's APIs and related Documentation is too lenient to
MICROSOFT.
For this part of III.D. to be in the public interest, the scope
of use of MICROSOFT's APIs and related Documentation should be
unconditional. In other words, III.D. should be rewritten as:
... Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, IAPs, ICPs,
and OEMs, ... the APIs and related Documentation ... .
12.III.Prohibited Conduct, D.
The scope of disclosure of MICROSOFT's APIs and related
Documentation is too narrow. The first sentence of III.D. states in
relevant part: ...
Microsoft shall disclose... *the APIs and related Documentation*
that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows
Operating System Product. ...
MICROSOFT has consistently withheld APIs from third party
developers so that MICROSOFT Middleware would interoperate better
with its Windows Operating System Products than with third party
Middleware. In particular MICROSOFT has withheld APIs and functions
regarding:
* DOS (see UNDOCUMENTED DOS by Andrew Schulman, Addison-Wesley,
ISBN 0-201-57064-5 and UNDOCUMENTED DOS 2nd
Edition by Andrew Schulman, Addison-Wesley, ISBN
0-201-63287-X)
* Windows 3.1 (see UNDOCUMENTED WINDOWS by Andrew Schulman,
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-60834-0)
* Windows 95 (see UNAUTHORISED WINDOWS 95 by Andrew Schulman,
IDG, ISBN 1-56884-169-8)
* Windows NT (see UNDOCUMENTED WINDOWS NT by Prassad Dabak,
Sandeep Phadke, Milind Borate, Hungry Minds, Inc., IBSN
0-764-54569-8)
* Windows 2000 (see UNDOCUMENTED WINDOWS 2000 SECRETS: A
PROGRAMMER'S COOKBOOK by Sven B. Scheiber, Addison-Wesley, ISBN
0-201-72187-2)
Furthermore, MICROSOFT has also withheld information regarding
their File Formats (see WINDOWS UNDOCUMENTED FILE FORMATS: WORKING
INSIDE 16- AND 32- BIT WINDOWS by Pete Davis, Mike Wallace, CMP
Books, ISBN 0-879- 30437-5). The fact that MICROSOFT has
consistently withheld APIs and related Documentation (and
information about their File Formats) indicates that they will
continue to withhold APIs and related Documentation from Third Party
developers. Since MICROSOFT will continue to withhold APIs and
related Documentation from Third Party developers, the scope of
disclosure required of MICROSOFT in III.D. is too narrow.
Furthermore, III.D. does not explicitly require MICROSOFT to
disclose *all* APIs and related Documentation used by MICROSOFT
Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.
Since III.D. does not explicitly require MICROSOFT to disclose *all*
APIs and related Documentation, MICROSOFT will always argue that
this proposed Final Judgment does not require it to disclose *all*
APIs and related Documentation used by MICROSOFT Middleware to
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. Since
MICROSOFT will always argue that this proposed Final Judgment does
not require it to disclose *all* APIs and related
[[Page 27043]]
Documentation used by MICROSOFT Middleware to interoperate with a
Windows Operating System Product, the scope of disclosure required
of MICROSOFT in III.D. is too narrow.
In addition, III.D. does not state who determines which APIs and
related Documentation MICROSOFT must disclose. Since III.D. does not
state who determines which APIs and related Documentation MICROSOFT
must disclose, MICROSOFT will claim that they have the right to
determine which APIs and related Documentation it must disclose.
Furthermore, as stated in the above GENERAL OBJECTIONS, the DOJ will
not expend additional time and resources on this case. Since the DOJ
will not expend additional time and resources on this case, they
will not contest MICROSOFT's right to determine which APIs and
related Documentation MICROSOFT must disclose. Since MICROSOFT will
claim that they have the right to determine which APIs and related
Documentation it must disclose, and the DOJ will not contest this
claim, III.D. basically allows MICROSOFT to determine its
punishment. In other words, III.D. allows MICROSOFT to determine
which APIs and related Documentation it will disclose. The fact that
MICROSOFT is already determining which APIs and related
Documentation it will disclose, and is withholding APIs and related
Documentation, indicates that MICROSOFT will continue to withhold
APIs and related Documentation. Since MICROSOFT will interpret
III.D. to allow MICROSOFT to continue withholding APIs and related
Documentation, the scope of disclosure in III.D. is too narrow.
Also, as stated above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT discloses all of
the APIs and related Documentation used by MICROSOFT Middleware to
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. Since the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT discloses all of
the APIs and related Documentation used by MICROSOFT Middleware to
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product, MICROSOFT is
free to continue withholding APIs and related Documentation used by
MICROSOFT Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System
Product. Since MICROSOFT is free to continue withholding APIs and
related Documentation used by MICROSOFT Middleware to interoperate
with a Windows Operating System Product, III.D. does not deter
MICROSOFT from continuing to withhold APIs and related Documentation
used by MICROSOFT Middleware to interoperate with a Windows
Operating System Product.
For III.D. to be in the public interest, III.D. must require
MICROSOFT to disclose the complete source code to all of their
Windows Operating System Products. As stated above, MICROSOFT has
consistently withheld APIs and related Documentation from Third
Party Developers. Since MICROSOFT has consistently withheld APIs and
related Documentation from Third Party Developers, the only way to
ensure that MICROSOFT discloses all of the APIs and related
Documentation used by MICROSOFT Middleware to interoperate with a
Windows Operating System Product is to require MICROSOFT to disclose
the complete source code of its Windows Operating System Products.
Furthermore, MICROSOFT must disclose the compilers used to
compile the binary files for its Windows Operating System Products.
MICROSOFT has history of altering its source code to prevent
competitors from writing compatible software. In the mid-1990s,
MICROSOFT consistently rewrote its Windows 3.1 source code to ensure
that IBM's OS/2 operating system remained incompatible with Windows
3.1. More recently, during the trial of this antitrust case,
MICROSOFT altered the code of Windows 98 in an attempt to impeach
government witness Edward Felten (see "A Tangled Web" at
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml and
"MS- DOJ: Microsoft on the retreat?" at http://
www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
0,6061,2175958-2,00.html).
The only way to know if MICROSOFT has disclosed the complete
source code of its Windows Operating System Products is to compile
the source code and compare these compiled binaries with the
binaries that MICROSOFT ships to OEMs and end users. Since the only
way to know if MICROSOFT has disclosed the complete source code of
its Windows Operating System Products is to compile the source code
and compare these compiled binaries with the binaries that MICROSOFT
ships to OEMs and end users, III.D. must require that MICROSOFT
disclose the compilers it uses to compile binaries of its Windows
Operating System Products" source code. Thus, III.D. should be
rewritten as follows:
... Microsoft shall disclose... *the complete source code of its
Windows Operating System Products, together with the compilers used
to compile the source code of the Windows Operating System Product*
. ... .
13. III.Prohibited Conduct, D. The means of disclosure of
MICROSOFT's APIs and related Documentation in III.D. is inadequate.
The first sentence of III.D. states in relevant part:
...Microsoft shall disclose..., *via the Microsoft Developer
Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and
related Documentation...
MICROSOFT has made their websites unavailable to Non-MICROSOFT
web browsers. In 1998, MICROSOFT inserted code in their MICROSOFT
Office update website such that persons using Non-MICROSOFT web
browsers got a warning message stating that they need to upgrade
their web browser to Internet Explorer 4.01 to access the full
edition of the update at the website (See "Use Internet
Explorer or...?" at http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/
dirtytricks.shtml). In October 2001, MICROSOFT altered their
websites so that Non-MICROSOFT web browsers, like OPERA, could not
view any webpages at MICROSOFT's website (See "New look MSN
turns away non-MS lovers" at http://www.theregister.co.uk/
content/6/22441.html, "The Browser Wars are back: Opera smacks
MSN" at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22618.html, and
"Opera tolerating MSN.co.uk goes live" at http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22714.html). The fact that
MICROSOFT has made their websites unavailable to Non-MICROSOFT web
browsers indicates that they will continue to do so. Since MICROSOFT
will continue to make their websites unavailable to Non-MICROSOFT
web browsers, requiring MICROSOFT to disclose their APIs and related
Documentation on the MSDN, or any MICROSOFT website, means that
these APIs and related Documentation will not be available to Non-
MICROSOFT web browsers. Since requiring MICROSOFT to disclose their
APIs and related Documentation on the MSDN, or any MICROSOFT
website, means that these APIs and related Documentation will not be
available to Non- MICROSOFT web browsers, the means of disclosure of
MICROSOFT's APIs and related Documentation in III.D. is inadequate.
Also, as stated above in OBJECTION 6. about III.C.1., the DOJ
will not police MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT does not block
Non-MICROSOFT web browsers from accessing its websites. Since the
DOJ will not police MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT does not
block Non-MICROSOFT web browsers from accessing its websites,
MICROSOFT is free to continue blocking Non-MICROSOFT web browsers
from accessing its websites. Since MICROSOFT is free to continue
blocking Non-MICROSOFT web browsers from accessing its websites,
III.D. does not deter MICROSOFT from continuing to block Non-
MICROSOFT web browsers from accessing its websites.
For III.D. to be in the public interest, MICROSOFT must be
required to publicly disclose its APIs and related Documentation in
Non-MICROSOFT websites like SLASHDOT (http://slashdot.org) and FRESH
MEAT (http://www.freashmeat.org). In other words, III.D. should be
rewritten as follows:
...Microsoft shall disclose..., *via Non-MICROSOFT websites,
including but not limited to, SLASHDOT (http://slashdot.org) and
FRESH MEAT (http://www.freshmeat.org), the APIs and related
Documentation... .
14.III.Prohibited Conduct, D.
The deadline for disclosure of MICROSOFT Middleware may be
illusory and thus ineffective. The second sentence of III.D. states
...In the case of a major new version of Microsoft Middleware,
the disclosures required by this section III.D. shall occur no later
than the last major beta test release of the Microsoft Middlware.
MICROSOFT is currently moving towards a subscription-based model
for its software. A subscription-based model for new software means
that MICROSOFT may not release any more "new" software.
Instead, MICROSOFT will simply update a user's current software
every month or so. Since MICROSOFT will simply update a user's
current software every month or so, MICROSOFT will not be releasing
any new major versions of their Operating Systems or Middleware.
Since MICROSOFT will not be releasing any new major versions of
their Windows Operating
[[Page 27044]]
System Products or Middleware, MICROSOFT will not be required to
release the APIs and related Documentation for these Windows
Operating System Products or Middleware. Since MICROSOFT will not be
required to release the APIs and related Documentation for these
Windows Operating System Products or Middleware, this deadline may
be illusory.
To summarize, the requirements of III.D. are too narrow and thus
inadequate. For III.D. to be in the public interest, the first
sentence of III.D. must be rewritten as follows: Starting at the
earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows
XP or *3* months after the submission of this Final Judgment to
the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, IAPs, ICPs,
and OEMs, *via Non-MICROSOFT websites, including but not limited to,
SLASHDOT (http://slashdot.org) and FRESH MEAT (http://
www.freshmeat.org), the complete source code of its Windows
Operating System Products, together with the compilers used to
compile the source code of the Windows Operating System Product and
related Documentation*. .
15.III.Prohibited Conduct, E.
For the same reasons stated in OBJECTION 10. regarding III.D.,
the deadline for releasing Communications Protocols in III.E. is too
lenient to MICROSOFT. III.E. allows MICROSOFT to wait *9 months*
after the submission of this proposed Final Judgment before
disclosing its Communications Protocols. As stated above in
OBJECTION 10. regarding III.D., MICROSOFT and its competitors
operate on "Internet time", where 3 months comprises an
"Internet year". Since 3 months comprises an
"Internet year", the deadline of 9 months for MICROSOFT
to disclose its Communications Protocols is too long. For the
deadline of III.E. to be in the public interest, it must be
shortened to 3 months. In other words, III.E. should be rewritten as
follows:
Starting *3* months after the submission of this proposed Final
Judgment to the Court,... .
16.III.Prohibited Conduct, E.
The terms of disclosure are too lenient to MICROSOFT. As stated
above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph, MICROSOFT lost
this case at the District Court and Appellate Court levels. Since
MICROSOFT lost this case at the District Court and Appellate Court
levels, the DOJ should not concede anything to MICROSOFT, including
the terms of disclosing MICROSOFT's Communications Protocols. III.E.
states in the relevant part:
...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.
First, since MICROSOFT lost this case, the scope of disclosure
of these Communcations Protocols should not be limited to *the sole
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product*.
Third Parties should be free to make whatever use of these
Communications Protocols that they choose. Allowing MICROSOFT to
limit their use to *the sole purpose of interoperating with a
Windows Operating System Product* simply gives MICROSOFT the
opportunity to deny disclosing these Communications Protocols by
claiming that the Third Party is not using them for *the sole
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product*.
Since limiting their use to *the sole purpose of interoperating with
a Windows Operating System Product* simply gives MICROSOFT the
opportunity to deny disclosing these Communications Protocols by
claiming that the Third Party is not using them for *the sole
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product*,
this limitation is too restrictive.
Second, *reasonable and non-discriminatory terms* is legalese
for royalty-bearing terms. By allowing MICROSOFT to charge Third
Parties royalties for disclosing its Communications Protocols,
III.E. allows MICROSOFT to discriminate against Open-Source
developers, who generally cannot afford to pay royalties. Since
III.E. allows MICROSOFT to discriminate against Open-Source
developers, who generally cannot afford to pay royalties, III.E. is
too restrictive.
Third, the scope of disclosure in III.E. is inadequate because
III.E. does not require MICROSOFT to disclose *all* Communications
Protocols. III.E. limits MICROSOFT's disclosure to Communications
Protocols that are:
(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.
Since III.E. limits MICROSOFT's disclosure to only
Communications Protocols meeting these requirements, III.E. does not
require MICROSOFT to disclose all Communications Protocols which are
necessary for Third Party developers to make their software
interoperate with MICROSOFT's Windows Operating System Products as
well as MICROSOFT's Middleware does. Since III.E. does not require
MICROSOFT to disclose all Communications Protocols which are
necessary for Third Party developers to make their software
interoperate with MICROSOFT's Windows Operating System Products as
well as MICROSOFT's Middleware does, III.E. allows MICROSOFT to
continue withholding Communications Protocols that allow its
Middlware to interoperate with MICROSOFT's Windows Operating System
Products better than Third Parties" Middleware. Since III.E.
allows MICROSOFT to continue withholding Communications Protocols
that allow its Middlware to interoperate with MICROSOFT's Windows
Operating System Products better than Third Parties"
Middleware, the scope of disclosure in III.E. is too narrow.
Furthermore, VI.B. of this proposed Final Judgment defines
Communications Protocols too narrowly. The last sentence of VI.B.
states:
...Communications Protocols shall *not* include protocols used
to remotely administer Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as
its successors.
Thus, III.E., when read in light of VI.B., further limits
MICROSOFT's disclosure to only those Communications Protocols that
are not used to remotely administer Windows 2000 Server and products
marketed as its successors. Since III.E., when read in light of
VI.B., further limits MICROSOFT's disclosure to only those
Communications Protocols that are not used to remotely administer
Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as its successors, the
scope of disclosure in III.E. in light of VI.B, is too narrow.
For III.E. to be in the public interest, all of these
limitations on MICROSOFT's disclosure of its Communications
Protocols must be deleted. In other words, III.E. should be
rewritten as follows: Starting *3* months after the submission of
this proposed Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make
available for use *on royalty-free terms* by third parties, *all*
Communications Protocols used by *all Microsoft software.
Furthermore, the last sentence of VI.B., excluding protocols
used to remotely administer Windows 2000 Server and products
marketed as its successors, must be deleted.
17.III.Prohibited Conduct, F. 2.
The exception of III.F.2. negates the restriction placed on
MICROSOFT.
The exception states:
...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.
MICROSOFT will use this exception to avoid the restrictions of
III.F.2., always claiming that the 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. As stated above in OBJECTION 4.
reagrding III.A., ISVs have a limited budget. By requiring ISVs to
spend that budget distributing and/or promoting MICROSOFT software,
MICROSOFT can prevent ISVs from developing, using, distributing or
promoting any software that competes with MICROSOFT software. Since
MICROSOFT can prevent ISVs from developing, using, distributing or
promoting any software that competes with MICROSOFT software,
MICROSOFT will use this exception to avoid the restrictions of
III.F.2. Since MICROSOFT will use this exception to avoid the
restrictions of III.F.2., the exception negates
[[Page 27045]]
the restriction that III.F.2. places on MICROSOFT.
For III.F.2. to be in the public interest, the exception must be
deleted. In other words, III.F.2. should be rewritten as follows:
Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a
Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any
Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using,
distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft
Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software. .
18.III.Prohibited Conduct, G.1. The prohibition of III.G.1. is
too narrow because it excludes Goverments, Educational Institutions,
Standards Setting Organizations and Non-Profit Organizations.
III.G.1. states in relevant part:
Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:
1. any *IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM*... Microsoft has been doing,
and continues to do, business with:
* Local, State, and National Governments
* Standards Setting Organizations
* Non-Profit Organizations
* Educational Institutions like Universities and Public Schools
Since Microsoft has been doing, and continues to do, business with
these groups, they should be included in the prohibition of III.G.1.
Since these groups are not included in the prohibition of III.G.1.,
III.G.1. is too narrow.
For III.G.1. to in the public interest, it must include these
other groups. In other words, III.G.1. should be rewritten as
follows:
1. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV, *OEM, government, educational
institution, standards-setting organization, or non- profit
organization*... .
19.III.Prohibited Conduct, G.1.
The exception in III.G.1. negates the restriction placed upon
MICROSOFT in III.G.1. The exception states:
...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,...
MICROSOFT has a monopoly in the PC market. MICROSOFT's only
competition comes from LINUX, which is available for free. Since
LINUX is available for free, every company/entity will *always* be
able to represent 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. Since
every company/entity will *always* be able to represent 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 exception allows MICROSOFT to
continue requiring companies/entities to distribute, promote, use or
support Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed percentage. Since
this exception allows MICROSOFT to continue requiring companies/
entities to distribute, promote, use or support Microsoft Platform
Software in a fixed percentage, this exception negates the
restriction that III.G.1. places upon MICROSOFT.
For III.G.1. to be in the public interest, the exception in
III.G.1. must be deleted. In other words, III.G.1. must be rewritten
as follows:
1. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV, *OEM, government, educational
institution, standards-setting organization, or non- profit
organization* that grants Consideration on the condition that such
entity distributes, promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a
fixed percentage, any Microsoft Platform Software*, or .
20.III.Prohibited Conduct, G. The exceptions ending III.G.
negate the restrictions that III.G. 1. and
2. place upon MICROSOFT. The exceptions state:
Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering
into:
(a) any bona fide joint venture or
(b) any joint development or joint services arrangement with any
ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM for a new product, technology, or
service, or any material value-add to an existing product,
technology, or service, in which both Microsoft and the ISV, IHV,
IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute significant developer or other
resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the object
of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable period of
time.
This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft
licenses intellectual property in from a third party.
These exceptions allow MICROSOFT to avoid the restrictions of
III.G. by calling this prohibited conduct a joint venture, joint
development, or joint services arrangement (Note that exception (b)
does not prohibit *MICROSOFT* from competing with the object of the
joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable period of time,
only MICROSOFT's partners) or by claiming that it is licensing
intellectual property in from a third party. Since these exceptions
allow MICROSOFT to avoid the restrictions of III.G. by calling this
prohibited conduct a joint venture, joint development, or joint
services arrangement or by claiming that it is licensing
intellectual property in from a third party, these exceptions negate
the restrictions that III.G. 1. and 2. place upon MICROSOFT.
For III.G. to be in the public interest, these exceptions must
be deleted from III.G.
21.III.Prohibited Conduct, H.
The deadline in III.H. for MICROSOFT to conform to the
restrictions is too long. As stated above in OBJECTION 11. regarding
III.D., MICROSOFT and its competitors operate on "Internet
time". Three months is a year in "Internet time".
Since 3 months is a year in "Internet time", and
MICROSOFT and its competitors operate on "Internet
time", the deadline in III.H. should be *3* months, not *12*
months. Since the deadline in III.H. is 12 months, the deadline is
too long.
For the deadline in III.H. to be in the public interest, it must
be shortened to 3 months. In other words, the first sentence of
III.H. should be rewritten as follows:
Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for
Windows XP or *3* months after the submission of this Final Judgment
to the Court, Microsoft shall: ... .
22.III.Prohibited Conduct, H.
The restrictions that III.H. places upon MICROSOFT are illusory
in light of VI.N. III.H. allows end users and OEMs to select Non-
MICROSOFT Middleware Products in place of MICROSOFT Middleware
Products. However, VI.N. defines "Non-MICROSOFT Middleware
Products" as a non-Microsoft software product running on a
Windows Operating System Product ... and (ii) of which at least *one
million copies* were distributed in the United States in the
previous year.
Very few Non-MICROSOFT software products have a distribution of
1 million copies in the United States in the previous year. Only
AOL's software and perhaps Adobe PHOTOSHOP meet this requirement.
Furthermore, this requirement excludes practically all Open-Source
software. Since very few, and practically no Open-Source, software
products meet this requirement, III.H. actually reads as follows:
MICROSOFT shall allow end users and OEMs to select AOL and Adobe
PHOTOSHOP in place of the equivalent MICROSOFT Middleware Product.
In other words, VI.N. renders the restrictions of III.H. illusory.
Since VI.N. renders the restrictions of III.H. illusory, VI.N. must
be rewritten to delete requirement "(ii)". In other
words, VI.N. should be rewritten as follows:
"Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" means a non-
Microsoft software product running on a Windows Operating System
Product that exposes a range of funtionality to ISVs through
published APIs and that could, if ported to or made interoperable
with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for
applications that rely in whole or in part on the funtionality
supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that
non-Microsoft Operating System. .
23.III.Prohibited Conduct, H.1.(a)
The exception in (a) of III.H.1. negates the restriction that
III.H.1. places upon MICROSOFT. The exception states: ...except that
Microsoft may restrict the display of icons, shortcuts, or menu
entries for any product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or
menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as being limited
to products that provide particular types of funtionality, provided
that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-
Microsoft and Microsoft products; ...
MICROSOFT will always claim that competing software that
MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does not provide particular types of
functionality. For example, MICROSOFT integrated their web browser,
Internet Explorer, into their Operating System, Windows 95/98, and
then claimed that Netscape's web browser did not provide similar
functionality. MICROSOFT also integrated their streaming media
player software, WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER, to preclude OEMs installing
Real Networks's streaming media player, REAL PLAYER. This past
August MICROSOFT allowed OEMs to place Non-MICROSOFT icons and
shortcuts on the Windows XP desktop. COMPAQ then announced that it
was placing the AOL icon
[[Page 27046]]
and shortcut on the Windows XP desktop. MICROSOFT immediately
changed its policy to requiring OEMs to place MICROSOFT icons and
shortcuts alongside Non- MICROSOFT icons and shortcuts of similar
functionality. The fact that MICROSOFT has integrated software into
their Windows Operating System Products to preclude competition and
required OEMs to place MICROSOFT icons and shortcuts alongside Non-
MICROSOFT icons and shortcuts indicates that MICROSOFT will use the
exception in III.H.1.(a) to claim that competing software that
MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does not provide particular types of
functionality. Since MICROSOFT will use the exception in III.H.1.(a)
to claim that competing software that MICROSOFT wishes to destroy
does not provide particular types of functionality, this exception
negates the restriction that III.H.1. places upon MICROSOFT.
The DOJ will not stop MICROSOFT from using the exception in
III.H.1.(a) to claim that competing software that MICROSOFT wishes
to destroy does not provide particular types of functionality. As
stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ will not
police MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT complies with this
proposed Final Judgment. Since the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT to
ensure that MICROSOFT complies with this proposed Final Judgment,
MICROSOFT is free to use the exception in III.H.1.(a) to claim that
competing software that MICROSOFT wishes to destroy does not provide
particular types of functionality. For III.H.1.(a) to be in the
public interest, this exception must be deleted. In other words,
III.H.1.(a) must be rewritten as follows:
(a)displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on
the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating
System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for
applications are generally displayed*; and .
24.III.Prohibited Conduct, H.1.(b)
The restriction in III.H.1.(b) is incomplete and allows
MICROSOFT to circumvent the restriction. III.H.1.(b) requires
MICROSOFT to allow end users and OEMs a "separate and unbiased
choice" for enabling/disabling MICROSOFT software and
automatic invocations of MICROSOFT software. However, this language
is vague and allows MICROSOFT to circumvent this restriction. As
mentioned above in OBJECTION 8. regarding III.C.3., MICROSOFT
inserted code into Windows 3.1 warning DR-DOS users not to use
DR-DOS with Windows 3.1. Currently, MICROSOFT has released
Windows XP, which contains the Passport software. Passport includes
code that causes a pop-up window to appear at least 5 times a day
until a Windows XP user opens a Passport account. Furthermore,
MICROSOFT refuses to provide technical support to Windows XP users
who do not have a Passport account. Since MICROSOFT has inserted
code in their Windows Operating System Products to coerce users to
use MICROSOFT software and/or open accounts with MICROSOFT to obtain
technical support, III.H.1.(b) should restrict MICROSOFT from
engaging in this behavior as well. Since III.H.1.(b) does not
restrict MICROSOFT from inserting code in their Windows Operating
System Products to coerce users to use MICROSOFT software and/or
open accounts with MICROSOFT to obtain technical support,
III.H.1.(b) is inadequate. For III.H.1.(b) to be in the public
interest, it must be rewritten to prohibit MICROSOFT from engaging
in the above-mentioned acts. In other words, III.H.1.(b) must be
rewritten as follows:
... The mechanism shall not include warnings of
incompatibilities warning the user to switch to MICROSOFT software,
nor shall the mechanism require confirmation from the user more than
once, nor shall the mechanism initiate requesting that the end user
install or use MICROSOFT software. ... .
25.III.Prohibited Conduct, H.2.
For the same reasons stated above in OBJECTION 23. regarding
III.H.1. (a), III.H.2. is inadequate. III.H.2. requires MICROSOFT to
allow end users to designate a Non-MICROSOFT Middlware Product in
place of a MICROSOFT Middleware Product. However, III.H.2. allows
MICROSOFT to require confirmation from the end user to making this
change. As stated above in OBJECTION 24. regarding III.H.1.(b),
MICROSOFT has used this confirmation technique to harass end users
into using MICROSOFT software and opening accounts with MICROSOFT.
Since MICROSOFT has used this confirmation technique to harass end
users into using MICROSOFT software and opening accounts with
MICROSOFT, III.H.2. must prohibit MICROSOFT from using these
techniques. Since III.H.2. does not prohibit MICROSOFT from using
these techniques, III.H.2. is inadequate. For III.H.2. to be in the
public interest, it must be rewritten to prohibit these harassing
techniques. In other words, III.H.2. must be rewritten as follows:
... (via a mechanism which may, at Microsoft's option, require
confirmation from the end user. *However, this confirmation shall
not include warnings of incompatibilities warning the user to switch
to MICROSOFT software, nor shall the mechanism require confirmation
from the user more than once, nor shall the mechanism initiate
requesting that the end user install or use MICROSOFT software.*)...
.
26.III.Prohibited Conduct, H.3.
For the same reasons stated above in OBJECTION 23. regarding
III.H.1. (a), III.H.3. is inadequate and should be rewritten to
prohibit MICROSOFT from engaging in the above-listed harassing
techniques.
27.III. Prohibited Conduct, H.
The 2 exceptions ending III.H. negate the restrictions that
III.H. places upon Microsoft. The first exception allows MICROSOFT's
Windows Operating System Products to invoke a MICROSOFT Middleware
Product if the Middleware Product is invoked solely to interoperate
with a server maintained by MICROSOFT. MICROSOFT's current .NET
strategy is to have end users run their software from the Internet
through a server maintained by MICROSOFT. In other words, MICROSOFT
is modifying their Middleware Products so that they will be invoked
solely for use in interoperating with a server maintained by
MICROSOFT. Since MICROSOFT is modifying their Middleware Products so
that they will be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a
server maintained by MICROSOFT, MICROSOFT's Middleware Products will
completely avoid the restrictions of III.H. Since the first
exception ending III.H. allows MICROSOFT to completely avoid the
restrictions of III.H., the first exception negates the restrictions
of III.H.
The second exception ending III.H. similarly negates the
restrictions of III.H. The second exception allows MICROSOFT's
Windows Operating System Products to invoke a MICROSOFT Middleware
Product if a Non-MICROSOFT Middleware Product does not meet
MICROSOFT's *reasonable technical requirements*. As stated above in
OBJECTION 12. regarding III.D., MICROSOFT has consistently withheld
APIs and related Documentation about their Windows Operating System
Products to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors for
Middleware Products. The fact that MICROSOFT has consistently
withheld APIs and related Documentation about their Windows
Operating System Products to gain an unfair advantage over their
competitors for Middleware Products indicates that it will continue
to do so. Furthermore, the fact that MICROSOFT will continue to
withhold APIs and related Documentation indicates that MICROSOFT
will withhold the reasonable technical requirements that competitors
need to make their Middleware Products interoperate with Windows
Operating System Products. By withholding the reasonable technical
requirements that competitors need to make their Middleware Products
interoperate with Windows Operating System Products and then
claiming that Non-MICROSOFT Middleware Products do not meet
MICROSOFT's reasonable technical requirements, MICROSOFT can
preclude users from invoking Non-MICROSOFT Middleware Products and
thereby avoid the restrictions of III.H. MICROSOFT can successfully
withhold reasonable technical requirements in violation of this
Final Judgment because the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT. As stated
above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ will not police
MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT complies with this Final
Judgment. Since the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT to ensure that
MICROSOFT complies with this Final Judgment, MICROSOFT will not
comply with this Final Judgment. In other words, MICROSOFT will
withhold reasonable technical requirements from their competitors to
prevent them from making Middleware Products that meet MICROSOFT's
reasonable technical requirements.
Since these 2 exceptions ending III.H. negate the restrictions
of III.H. they should be deleted from the proposed Final Judgment.
28. III. Prohibited Conduct, I.2.
The scope of the license for MICROSOFT's Intellectual Property
Rights ("IPRs") in III.I.2. is too narrow. III.I.2.
states in relevant part:
...the scope of any such license (and the intellectual property
rights licensed thereunder) need be no broader than is necessary to
ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP or OEM is able to exercise the
options
[[Page 27047]]
or alternatives expressly provided under this Final Judgment...
As stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., MICROSOFT
has consistently withheld APIs and related Documentation from their
competitors. The fact that MICROSOFT has consistently withheld APIs
and related Documentation from their competitors indicates that they
will consistently withhold IPRs from their competitors to prevent
their competitors from making Middleware Products that can truly
compete with MICROSOFT Middleware Products. Since MICROSOFT will
consistently withhold IPRs from their competitors to prevent their
competitors from making Middleware Products that can truly compete
with MICROSOFT Middleware Products, limiting the scope of the
license of MICROSOFT's IPRs to "no broader than necessary to
ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP or OEM is able to exercise the
options or alternatives expressly provided under this Final
Judgment..." is too narrow.
Once again MICROSOFT can successfully withhold IPRs in violation
of this proposed Final Judgment because, as stated above in
OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT.
Since the DOJ will not police MICROSOFT to ensure that MICROSOFT
complies with this proposed Final Judgment, MICROSOFT will not
comply with this Final Judgment. In other words, MICROSOFT will not
grant their competitors the IPRs necessary to make Middleware
Products that can truly compete with MICROSOFT's Middleware
Products. Since MICROSOFT will not grant their competitors the IPRs
necessary to make Middleware Products that can truly compete with
MICROSOFT's Middleware Products, the scope of the license of
MICROSOFT's IPRs under III.I.2. is too narrow. For III.I.2. to be in
the public interest, it must be rewritten to grant all software
developers a license to all of MICROSOFT's IPRs. Furthermore, this
license should be royalty-free for Open-Source Software developers
(who generally lack the money to pay royalties). In other words,
III.I.2. should be rewritten as follows:
2. MICROSOFT shall license all of its IPRs to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs or OEMs. Furthermore, MICROSOFT shall grant a royalty- free
license of its IPRs to Open-Source Software developers.
29.III.Prohibited Conduct, I.5.
The requirement of III.I.5. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. As
stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph,
MICROSOFT lost this case in the District Court and the Court
Appeals. Since MICROSOFT lost this case in the District Court and
the Court Appeals, the DOJ should not concede anything to MICROSOFT,
especially allowing MICROSOFT to require software developers to
license back IPRs they developed from licensing MICROSOFT IPRs.
Since the DOJ should not concede anything to MICROSOFT, they should
not allow MICROSOFT to require software developers to grant back
their IPRs developed from licensing MICROSOFT's IPRs. Since III.I.5.
allows MICROSOFT to require software developers to grant back their
IPRs developed from licensing MICROSOFT's IPRs,
III.I.5. is too lenient.
For III.I. to be in the public interest, III.I.5. should be
deleted from the proposed Final Judgment.
30.III. Prohibited Conduct, J.1. III.J.1.(a) allows MICROSOFT to
avoid most of the prohibitions of this Final Judgment by claiming
they are related to anti-piracy measures. III.J.1.(a) states:
No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third
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;...
III.J.1.(a) allows MICROSOFT to withhold APIs and related
Documentation from competitors by claiming these APIs and
Documentation relate to anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,
digital rights management, encryption or authntication systems. This
concession to MICROSOFT is a joke, as MICROSOFT has the worst, bar
none, record for security in the computer industry. Instead of
allowing MICROSOFT to withhold APIs and related Documentation based
on these grounds, this proposed Final Judgment should require
MICROSOFT to disclose these APIs and related Documentation because
MICROSOFT has no credible anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authntication
systems. Since III.J.1.(a) allows MICROSOFT to withhold APIs and
related Documentation from competitors by claiming these APIs and
Documentation relate to anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,
digital rights management, encryption or authntication systems,
III.J.1. (a) allows MICROSOFT to avoid most of the prohibitions of
this Final Judgment.
III.J.1.(b) is a tautology and is thus superfluous to this
proposed Final Judgment. If a governmental agency of competent
jurisdiction lawfully directs MICROSOFT not to release APIs or
related Documentation, then this Court cannot order otherwise. Since
if a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction lawfully directs
MICROSOFT not to release APIs or related Documentation, then this
Court cannot order otherwise, III.J.1.(b) simply restates the law.
Since III.J.1.(b) simply restates the law, it is a tautology and
thus superfluous to this proposed Final Judgment.
For III.J. to be in the public interest, III.J.1. must be
deleted from this proposed Final Judgment.
31. III. Prohibited Conduct, J.2.
III.J.2. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. III.J.2. allows MICROSOFT
to condition licensing 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. As
stated above in OBJECTION 30. regarding III.J.1., MICROSOFT's
security is practically non-existent. Since MICROSOFT's security is
practically non-existent, no harm can come from licensing these
APIs, Documentation, Communications Protocols, etc. Since no harm
can come from licensing these APIs, Documentation, Communications
Protocols, etc., III.J.2. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. Furthermore,
the conditions that III.J.2. allows MICROSOFT to place upon
licensees are vague and thus subject to abuse. III.J.2. states these
conditions as:
(a) has no history of software counterfeiting piracy or willful
violation of IPRs,
(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 Communications 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.
(b) contains the vague phrase "reasonable business
need". (c) contains the vague phrase "reasonable,
objective standards". (d) contains the vague phrase
"verification and compliance with Microsoft
specifications". III.J.2. is also troubling because it allows
*MICROSOFT* to determine these conditions. (c) and (d) explicitly
state that MICROSOFT shall determine the standards. (c) states
"reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft". (d) states that the program shall be submitted to
a third party *approved by Microsoft*". (a) and (b) implicitly
allow MICROSOFT to determine the condition. (b) does not explicitly
state who determines whether a licensee has a reasonable business
need, but given the leniency shown to MICROSOFT in III.J. as a
whole, MICROSOFT will argue that it has the right to determine this
condition. Likewise with (a). As stated above in OBJECTION 1.
regarding the second paragraph, MICROSOFT lost this case; the
District Court and Court of Appeals both held that MICROSOFT was a
monopolist and abused its monopoly power to maintain its monopoly.
Since these Courts held that MICROSOFT violated the law, MICROSOFT
should not be the party determining these conditions. Furthermore,
since MICROSOFT is computer-security challenged, MICROSOFT should
not be allowed to condition the license of these IPRs on these, or
other, conditions.
For III.J. to be in the public interest, III.J.2. should be
deleted. To be more precise, III.J. should be deleted in its
entirety. Furthermore, this proposed Final Judgment should prohibit
MICROSOFT from making software relating to anti-piracy systems,
anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms,
authentication/authorization security, or third-party intellectual
property protection mechanisms until a jury of its peers (SUN
MICROSYSTEMS, AOL, and IBM, for example) determines that
[[Page 27048]]
MICROSOFT is capable of making secure software. 32. IV. Compliance
and Enforcement Procedures, A.1.
IV.A.1. allows MICROSOFT to continue violating the antitrust
laws.
IV.A.1. states:
1. The United States shall have *exclusive responsibility* for
enforcing this Final Judgment.
In other words, IV.A.1. deprives the States of their concurrent
jurisdiction in this case and the corresponding right to enforce
this Final Judgment. As stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding
III.C.1., the DOJ will not enforce this proposed Final Judgment.
Since the DOJ will not enforce this proposed Final Judgment, the
States will have to enforce this proposed Final Judgment. However,
IV.A.1. ensures that *no one* will enforce this proposed Final
Judgment by granting *exclusive responsibility/jurisdiction* to the
United States/DOJ. Since IV.A.1. grants exclusive jurisdiction to
the United States/DOJ, and the DOJ will not enforce this proposed
Final Judgment, IV.A.1. allows MICROSOFT to continue violating the
antitrust laws.
For IV.A.1. to be in the public interest, it must grant
concurrent jurisdiction to the States to enforce this proposed Final
Judgment. In other words, IV.A.1. should be rewritten as follows:
1. The United States, and the individual States, shall share
jurisdiction for enforcing this Final Judgment.
33.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, A.2.
IV.A.2. is an illusory and thus ineffective remedy. IV.A.2.
allows the United States/DOJ to inspect MICROSOFT's documents,
premises, and employees for compliance with this proposed Final
Judgment. As stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the
DOJ will not enforce this proposed Final Judgment. Since the DOJ
will not enforce this proposed Final Judgment, the DOJ will never
inspect MICROSOFT's documents, premises, or employees for compliance
with this proposed Final Judgment. Since the DOJ will never inspect
MICROSOFT's documents, premises, or employees for compliance with
this proposed Final Judgment, this right to inspect is illusory and
thus ineffective.
34.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, A.3.
IV.A.3. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. IV.A.3. states in relevant
part: The United States shall *not* disclose any information or
documents obtained from Microsoft under this Final Judgment *except
for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment*, in
a legal proceeding to which the United States is a party, or as
otherwise required by law, *provided* that the United States must
provide ten days" advance notice to Microsoft before
disclosing in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury
proceeding) to which Microsoft is not a party any information or
documents provided by Microsoft pursuant to this Final Judgment
which Microsoft has identified in writing as material...
As stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph,
MICROSOFT lost this case. Since MICROSOFT lost this case, the DOJ
should not be making any concessions to MICROSOFT, including
withholding evidence from the public. Furthermore, the United
States" taxpayers paid for this litigation. Since the United
States" taxpayers paid for this litigation, they have a right
to see what they paid for. In particular, the public have a right to
see the documents that MICROSOFT produced pursuant to this
litigation. Since the public have a right to see the documents that
MICROSOFT produced pursuant to this litigation, and the DOJ should
not concede anything to MICROSOFT, IV.A.3. is too lenient to
MICROSOFT.
For IV.A.3. to be in the public interest, IV.A.3. should be
rewritten to *require* the United States to disclose the documents
and other evidence it obtained from MICROSOFT pursuant to this
litigation. In other words, IV.A.3. should be rewritten as follows:
The United States shall disclose all information and documents
obtained from MICROSOFT pertaining to this litigation, including but
not limited to publishing this information and documents in the
FEDERAL REGISTER and on the DOJ's website.
35.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, A.4.
IV.A.4. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. IV.A.4. requires the United
States to alllow MICROSOFT "reasonable opportunity" to
cure alleged violations of this propsed Final Judgment before
seeking a court order to enforce this Final Judgment. However, this
proposed Final Judgment does not define the term "reasonable
opportunity". Since this proposed Final Judgment does not
define the term "reasonable opportunity", MICROSOFT can
prevent the United States from enforcing this proposed Final
Judgment by claiming that "reasonable opporuntity" means
5 years. Or, more likely, MICROSOFT can file consecutive motions
delaying the United States from enforcing this proposed Final
Judgment by claiming that they are "working on the problem and
need more time" and thus extend indefinitely the
"reasonable opportunity" to cure the alleged defect.
Since IV.A.4. allows MICROSOFT to prevent the United States from
enforcing this proposed Final Judgment, IV.A.4. is too lenient to
MICROSOFT.
IV.A.4. also allows MICROSOFT to claim that its attempt to cure
the defect is a defense to enforcement of this proposed Final
Judgment.
IV.A.4. states in relevant part:
...provided further that any action by Microsoft to cure any
such violation shall not be a defense to enforcement with respect to
any *knowing,willful or systematic* violation. Proving a *knowing,
willful or systematic* violation is extremely difficult. In fact, a
lot of prosecutors will not prosecute fraud or other crimes
requiring "knowing, willful or systematic violations"
precisely because proving "knowing, willful or systematic
violations" is so difficult. Furthermore, as stated above in
OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ does not want to enforce
this proposed Final Judgment. Since proving "knowing, willful
or systematic violations" is so difficult, and the DOJ does
not want to enforce this proposed Final Judgment, *in practice*
MICROSOFT will *never* be charged with a *knowing, willful or
systematic violation of this proposed Final Judgment. Since *in
practice* MICROSOFT will *never* be charged with a *knowing, willful
or systematic violation* of this proposed Final Judgment, MICROSOFT
will always be able to use their actions to cure an alleged
violation as a defense against enforcement of this proposed Final
Judgment. Since MICROSOFT will always be able to use their actions
to cure an alleged violation as a defense against enforcement of
this proposed Final Judgment, IV.A.4. is too lenient. For IV.A.4. to
be in the public interest, the term "reasonable
opportunity" should be replaced with "30 days".
Furthermore, the phrase "knowing, willful or systematic"
must be deleted from IV.A.4. In other words, IV.A.4. should be
rewritten as follows:
...provided, however, that the United States shall afford
Microsoft *30 days* to cure alleged violations of Sections III.C.,
III.D., III.E. and III.H., provided further that any action by
Microsoft to cure any such violation shall not be a defense to
enforcement with respect to any violation.
36.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B. The Technical
Committee ("TC") described in IV.B. is an illusory and
thus ineffective remedy. IV.B.2. describes the qualifications of the
Technical Committee as:
The TC members shall be experts in software design and
programming.
No TC member shall have a conflict of interest that could
prevent him or her from performing his or her duties under this
Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. ...no TC member
(absent the agreement of both parties):
a. shall have been employed in any capacity by Microsoft or any
competitor to Microsoft within the past year, nor shall she or he be
so employed during his or her term on the TC;
b. shall have been retained as a consulting or testifying expert
by any person in this action or in any other action adverse to or on
behalf of Microsoft; or
c. shall perform any other work for Microsoft or any competitor
of Microsoft for two years after the expiration of the term of his
or her service on the TC.
Practically every "expert in software design and
programming" has been employed by Microsoft or its competitors
either as a programmer or as an expert in this antitrust trial.
Since practically every "expert in software design and
programming" has been employed by Microsoft or its competitors
either as a programmer or as an expert in this antitrust trial, no
expert qualifies for the TC. The problem here is that, as stated
above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ will not enforce
this proposed Final Judgment. Since the DOJ will not enforce this
proposed Final Judgment, MICROSOFT is free to pick a TC member
biased towards MICROSOFT without the DOJ objecting under IV.B.2.
Furthermore, MICROSOFT will object to every expert that the DOJ
selects that is biased against MICROSOFT. For example, in the
contempt proceeding in early 1998 preceding the present case, Judge
Jackson appointed a technical expert to educate the court in
computer software, operating systems, and
[[Page 27049]]
web brwosers. This expert had made one off-hand comment about his
APPLE computer. MICROSOFT objected to Judge Jackson appointing this
expert based upon this 1 off-hand comment. The fact that MICROSOFT
objected to Judge Jackson appointing this expert based upon this 1
off-hand comment indicates that MICROSOFT will object to *any*
expert that the DOJ selects who is biased against MICROSOFT. Since
MICROSOFT will object to every expert that the DOJ selects that is
biased against MICROSOFT, and the DOJ will not enforce this proposed
Final Judgment, the DOJ will ultimately select a TC member that is
also biased towards MICROSOFT. Thus, both MICROSOFT and the DOJ will
select TC members who are biased towards MICROSOFT. These 2 TC
members will then select a third TC member. Since both MICROSOFT and
the DOJ will select an expert biased towards MICROSOFT, this third
TC member will also be biased towards MICROSOFT. Since all 3 members
of the TC will be biased towards MICROSOFT, they will always find
MICROSOFT in compliance with this proposed Final Judgment. Since the
TC will always find MICROSOFT in compliance with this proposed Final
Judgment, this Technical Committee is an illusory and thus
ineffective remedy.
For IV.B. to be in the public interest, IV.B.2. and 3. must be
rewritten to remove any input from MICROSOFT. MICROSOFT must be
prohibited from selecting or having the right to object to *any*
member of the TC. Furthermore, *none* of the TC members must have
been employed or retained by MICROSOFT at any time. Finally, instead
of MICROSOFT choosing a TC member, *MICROSOFT's competitors* should
choose a TC member who, together with the DOJ's choice, choose the
third TC member. In other words, IV.B.2. and 3. should be rewritten
as follows:
2. ...The TC members shall be experts in software design and
programming. No TC member shall have a conflict of interest that
could prevent him or her from performing his or her duties under
this Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. ...no TC member:
a. shall have been employed in any capacity by Microsoft within
the past year, nor shall she or he be so employed during his or her
term on the TC;
b. shall have been retained as a consulting or testifying expert
by any person in this action or in any other action on behalf of
Microsoft; or
c. shall perform any other work for Microsoft for two years
after the expiration of the term of his or her service on the TC.
3. Within 7 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the United
States and MICROSOFT's competitors shall each select one member of
the TC, and those two members shall then select the third member.
...
a. ..., the United States and MICROSOFT's competitors shall each
identify the members it selects.
b. As soon as practical after their appointment by the Court,
the two members selected by the United States and MICROSOFT's
competitors shall identify the person they propose to select as the
third member of the TC.
c. The United States shall apply to the Court for appointment of
the person selected by the Standing Committee Members. .
37.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.6.
The exception in IV.B.6. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. IV.B.6.
requires MICROSOFT to compensate the TC members for their employment
and expenses. However, IV.B.6. contains an exception that allows
MICROSOFT to contest payment of the TC members. The exception in
IV.B.6. states:
...except to the extent that such liabilities, losses, damages,
claims, or expenses result from misfeasance, gross negligence,
willful or wanton acts, or bad faith by the TC member.
In November 1998, shortly after this antitrust case was filed,
MICROSOFT lobbied Congress to cut the DOJ's budget. Furthermore, in
December 2001, MICROSOFT again lobbied Congress to kill a Senate
Judiciary Committee Hearing questioning this proposed Final Judgment
(see "Experts Question Microsoft Action" at http://
dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20020111/tc/
microsoft_antitrust_12.html). The fact that shortly
after this antitrust case was filed MICROSOFT lobbied Congress to
cut the DOJ's budget, and that MICROSOFT recently lobbied Congress
to kill the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing questioning this
proposed Final Judgment, indicates that MICROSOFT will refuse to pay
the TC members if they do not find MICROSOFT in compliance with this
proposed Final Judgment. Since MICROSOFT will refuse to pay the TC
members if they do not find MICROSOFT in compliance with this
proposed Final Judgment, the exception in IV.B.6. is too lenient to
MICROSOFT.
For IV.B.6. to be in the public interest, this exception must be
deleted. In other words, IV.B.6. should be rewritten as follows:
... Microsoft shall indemnify each TC member and hold him or her
harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or
expenses arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of
the TC's duties. The TC Services Agreement shall include the
following: ...
38.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.8.c.
The first sentence of IV.B.8.c. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. The
first sentence of IV.B.8.c. starts:
The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, *subject to
the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality
Agreement*
As stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph,
MICROSOFT lost this case. Since MICROSOFT lost this case, the DOJ
should not concede anything to MICROSOFT. Furthermore, as stated
above in OBJECTION 12. regarding III.D., MICROSOFT should be
*required* to disclose the entire source code and compilers used to
compile the binaries for their Windows Operating System Products to
comply with the prohibitions of this proposed Final Judgment. Since
the DOJ should not concede anything to MICROSOFT, and MICROSOFT
should be *required* to disclose the entire source code and
compilers used to compile the binaries for their Windows Operating
System Products to comply with the prohibitions of this proposed
Final Judgment, the TC's access to MICROSOFT's source code should
*not* be subject to *any* Confidentiality Agreement. Since IV.B.8.c.
conditions the TC's access to MICROSOFT's source upon agreeing to
MICROSOFT's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement,
IV.B.8.c. is too lenient to MICROSOFT.
For IV.B.8.c. to be in the public interest, IV.B.8.c. must grant
the TC access to MICROSOFT's source code without being subject to
MICROSOFT's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement. In other
words, IV.B.8.c. should be rewritten as follows:
The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code. The TC may
study, interrogate, ...
39.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.8.c.
IV.B.8.c. is incomplete and thus inadequate for the TC to
perform its duties. IV.B.8.c. states in relevant part:
... The TC may *study, interrogate, and interact* with the
source code in order to perform its functions and duties, including
the handling of complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.
However, IV.B.8.c. does not *explicitly* grant the TC the power to
compile the source code. As stated above in OBJECTION 12. regarding
III.D., the only way to ensure that MICROSOFT is complying with this
proposed Final Judgment is to compile the source code and compare
the resulting binaries with the binaries that MICROSOFT ships to
OEMs. Since the only way to ensure that MICROSOFT is complying with
this proposed Final Judgment is to compile the source code and
compare the resulting binaries with the binaries that MICROSOFT
ships to OEMs, the TC needs the power to compile the source code of
MICROSOFT's software. MICROSOFT will claim that since the proposed
Final Judgment does not explicitly grant the TC the power to compile
the source code, that the TC does not have the power to compile the
source code. Furthermore, as stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding
III.C.1., the DOJ will not enforce this proposed Final Judgment.
Since MICROSOFT will claim that this proposed Final Judgment does
not grant the TC the power to compile the source code, and the DOJ
will not contest MICROSOFT's claim, MICROSOFT will prevent the TC
from compiling the source code. Since the TC needs the power to
compile the source code of MICROSOFT's software to determine if
MICROSOFT is complying with this proposed Final Judgment, and
MICROSOFT will prevent the TC from compiling the source code,
IV.B.8.c. is incomplete and thus inadequate for the TC to perform
its duties.
For IV.B.8.c. to be in the public interest, IV.B.8.c. must
*explicitly* grant the TC the power to compile the source code of
MICROSOFT's software. In other words, IV.B.8.c. should be rewritten
as follows:
... The TC may *study, interrogate, compile, and otherwise
interact* with the source code in order to perform its functions and
duties, including the handling of complaints and other inquiries
from non-parties.
[[Page 27050]]
40.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.8.i.
IV.B.8.i. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. IV.B.8.i. allows
MICROSOFT to object to the reasonable expenses and fees of the TC.
Specifically, IV.B.8.i. states:
... Microsoft may, on application to the Court, object to the
reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. ...
As stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph,
MICROSOFT lost this case. Since MICROSOFT lost this case, the DOJ
should not concede anything to MICROSOFT, including the right to
object to the expenses and fees of the TC. Since the DOJ should not
concede anything to MICROSOFT, including the right to object to the
expenses and fees of the TC, IV.B.8.i. is too lenient to MICROSOFT.
For IV.B.8.i. to be in the public interest, MICROSOFT's right to
object to the fees and expenses of the TC must be deleted. In other
words, IV.B.8.i. should be rewritten as follows:
The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred,
including agreed upon fees for the TC members" services,
subject to the approval of the United States. [END OF IV.B.8.i.]
41.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.8.
IV.B.8. is incomplete and thus inadequate for the TC to perform
their duties of ensuring MICROSOFT's compliance with this proposed
Final Judgment. IV.B.8. does not grant the TC the power to enjoin
MICROSOFT from releasing products which violate this proposed Final
Judgment. Without this power, this proposed Final Judgment is
ineffective. As stated above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the
DOJ will not enforce this proposed Final Judgment. Furthermore,
IV.A. grants the United States excusive jurisdiction to enforce this
proposed Final Judgment, so the States cannot enforce this proposed
Final Judgment. Since the DOJ will not, and the States cannot,
enforce this proposed Final Judgment, the TC is the only body
positioned to enforce it. Since the TC is the only body positioned
to enforce this proposed Final Judgment, they should have the power
to enjoin MICROSOFT from releasing products that violate this
proposed Final Judgment. Since IV.B.8. does not grant the TC the
power to enjoin MICROSOFT from releasing products that violate this
proposed Final Judgment, IV.B.8. is incomplete and thus inadequate
for the TC to perform their duties of ensuring MICROSOFT's
compliance with this proposed Final Judgment. For IV.B.8. to be in
the public interest, it must grant the TC the right enjoin
MICROSOFT's products which do not comply with this proposed Final
Judgment. In other words, IV.B.8. should include an additional part
"j." as follows:
j. The TC shall have the power to enjoin the release, sale, or
other transmission of any MICROSOFT software or products which do
not comply with this Final Judgment.
42.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.9.
IV.B.9. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. IV.B.9. prohibits the TC
from disclosing any information obtained in the course of performing
his or her duties to anyone other than MICROSOFT, the United States,
and this Court. As stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second
paragraph, MICROSOFT lost this case. Since MICROSOFT lost this case,
the DOJ should not concede anything to MICROSOFT, including the
public desemination of information that the TC learns in the course
of performing his or her duties pursuant to the proposed Final
Judgment. Furthermore, the United States taxpayers paid for this
antitrust trial. Since the United States taxpayers paid for this
antitrust trial, they have a right to know what the TC learn in the
course of performing their duties pursuant to this proposed Final
Judgment. Since IV.B.9. prohibits the TC from disclosing any
information obtained in the course of performing his or her duties
to anyone other than MICROSOFT, the United States, and this Court,
IV.B.9. is too lenient to MICROSOFT. For IV.B.9. to be in the public
interest, it must *require* the TC to publicly disclose all
information that it discovers in the course of performing their
duties. In other words, IV.B.9. should be rewritten as follows:
The TC shall publicly disclose, in the FEDERAL REGISTER and any
other forum deemed necessary, all information obtained in the course
of performing their duties pursuant to this Final Judgment.
43.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, B.10.
IV.B.10. is too lenient to MICROSOFT, for the same reasons as
stated above in OBJECTION 42. regarding IV.B.9. For IV.B.10. to be
in the public interest, it must *require* the TC to make public
statements relating to the TC's activities. In other words, IV.B.10.
should be rewritten as follows:
Each member of the TC shall be required to make public
statements relating to the TC's activities.
44.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, C.1.
The qualifications of the MICROSOFT Internal Compliance Officer
in IV.C.1. are illusory and thus ineffective. IV.C.1. requires
MICROSOFT to designate an Internal Compliance Officer who shall
supervise MICROSOFT's activities in complying with this proposed
Final Judgment. However, IV.C.1. states that this Internal
Compliance Officer "...shall be an employee of
Microsoft...". MICROSOFT has consistently violated the
antitrust laws of the United States and the Euopean Union, among
other jurisdictions (for details, see THE MICROSOFT FILE: THE SECRET
CASE AGAINST BILL GATES by Wendy Goldman Rohm, Times Business,
copyright 1998, ISBM 0-8129-2716-8). MICROSOFT's
employees have worked to make these antitrust violations possible.
Since MICROSOFT's employees have worked to make these antitrust
violations possible, MICROSOFT's employees have a conflict of
interest in administering MICROSOFT's program for complying with
this proposed Final Judgment. To be more precise, MICROSOFT's
employees have *no interest or incentive* to comply with this
proposed Final Judgment. Since MICROSOFT's employees have *no
interest or incentive* to comply with this proposed Final Judgment,
they will *not* ensure that MICROSOFT complies with this proposed
Final Judgment. Since MICROSOFT's employees will *not* ensure that
MICROSOFT complies with this proposed Final Judgment, designating a
MICROSOFT employee as Internal Compliance Officer is an illusory and
thus ineffective remedy.
For IV.C.1. to be in the public interest, the qualifications of
the Internal Compliance Officer must require that the Officer *not*
be an employee of MICROSOFT. Furthermore, IV.C.1. must require that
the Officer be selected from MICROSOFT's competitors, specifically
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, AOL, and/or IBM. In other words, IV.C.1. should be
rewritten as follows:
Microsoft shall designate, within 30 days of entry of this Final
Judgment, an internal Compliance Officer who shall be an employee of
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, AOL, or IBM with responsibility for administering
Microsoft's antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure
compliance with this Final Judgment.
45.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, C.3.d.
The warning contained in the certification that MICROSOFT
officers and directors must sign is inadequate and thus ineffective.
IV.C.3.d. requires MICROSOFT's officers and directors to sign a
certification that he or she:
(i) has read and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final
Judgment; and
(ii) has been advised and understands that his or her failure to
comply with this Final Judgment may result in *a finding of contempt
of court;
The officers and directors of MICROSOFT control the actions of
MICROSOFT. Since the officers and directors of MICROSOFT control the
actions of MICROSOFT, the actions of the officers and directors of
MICROSOFT should be imputed to MICROSOFT. To be more precise, the
failure of MICROSOFT's officers and directors to comply with this
Final Judgment should be considered a *knowing, willful or
systematic violation* of this proposed Final Judgment. Furthermore,
punishing an officer or director does not stop MICROSOFT from
continuing to violate the antitrust laws. Since punishing an officer
or director does not stop MICROSOFT from continuing to violate the
antitrust laws, the warning of IV.C.3.d. is not adequate to deter
MICROSOFT from continuing to violate the antitrust laws. Since the
warning of IV.C.3.d. is not adequate to deter MICROSOFT from
continuing to violate the antitrust laws, it is ineffective.
For IV.C.3.d. to be in the public interest, the warning in the
certification must be rewritten to impute the officer or director's
failure to comply with this proposed Final Judgment to MICROSOFT. In
other words, IV.C.3.d. should be rewritten as follows: obtaining
from each person designated in Section IV.C.3.a. above...
(ii) has been advised and understands that his or her failure to
comply with this Final Judgment comprises a knowing, willful or
systematic violation of this Final Judgment;
46.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, D.3.a. IV.D.3.a.
renders this proposed Final Judgment an illusory and ineffective
remedy. IV.D.3.a. states in
[[Page 27051]]
relevant part: ... the United States may submit complaints related
to Sections III.C., III.D. III.E., and III.H. to the Compliance
Officer
*whenever doing so would be in the public interest. In other
words, IV.D.3.a. allows the United States to abdicate responsibility
for enforcing this proposed Final Judgment to MICROSOFT. As stated
above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ will not enforce
this proposed Final Judgment. Since the DOJ will not enforce this
proposed Final Judgment, the DOJ will seize any opportunity to
abdicate enforcing this proposed Final Judgment. Since IV.D.3.a.
allows the DOJ to abdicate responsibility for enforcing this
proposed Final Judgment to MICROSOFT, and the DOJ will seize any
opportunity to abdicate enforcing this proposed Final Judgment, the
DOJ will in fact use IV.D.3.a. to claim that letting MICROSOFT
resolve these complaints is in the public interest. Since MICROSOFT
has no interest in resolving these Complaints, MICROSOFT will ignore
these Complaints and continue violating this proposed Final Judgment
(Note that MICROSOFT's customers will be submitting the exact same
complaints to MICROSOFT's technical support department. Since
MICROSOFT's customers will be submitting the exact same complaints
to MICROSOFT's technical support department, MICROSOFT will already
know about these complaints. Since MICROSOFT will already know about
these complaints, they can resolve these complaints without the DOJ
submitting the complaints to MICROSOFT). In fact, allowing MICROSOFT
to resolve these Complaints is like asking the fox to guard the hen
house. Since MICROSOFT will ignore these Complaints and continue
violating this proposed Final Judgment, IV.D.3.a. renders this
proposed Final Judgment an illusory and ineffective remedy.
For IV.D.3.a. to be in the public interest, the DOJ must be
prohibited from allowing MICROSOFT to resolve complaints submitted
to the DOJ. In other words, IV.D.3.a. must be rewritten as follows:
a. Third parties may submit to the Compliance Officer any
complaints concerning MICROSOFT's compliance with this Final
Judgment. [END OF IV.D.3.a.]
47.IV.Compliance and Enforcement Procedures, C.4.d. IV.D.4.d.,
in practice, prevents the DOJ from ever enforcing this proposed
Final Judgment. IV.D.4.d. states:
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.
In other words, should the TC find evidence that MICROSOFT is
violating this proposed Final Judgment and refers this evidence to
the DOJ, the DOJ cannot use this evidence to enforce this proposed
Final Judgment against MICROSOFT. Furthermore, as stated above in
the GENERAL OBJECTIONS, the DOJ does not wish to spend any more time
and resources prosecuting MICROSOFT. Since the DOJ does not wish to
spend any more time and resources prosecuting MICROSOFT, the DOJ
will not make any effort to discover this evidence through
additional depositions or discovery requests against MICROSOFT.
Since the DOJ will not make any effort to discover this evidence
through additional depositions or discovery requests against
MICROSOFT, and IV.D.4.d. prevents the DOJ from using the evidence
the TC discovers, IV.D.4.d. has the practical effect of preventing
the DOJ from enforcing this proposed Final Judgment against
MICROSOFT.
As a sidenote, IV.D.4.d. stands the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on their head. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
prevent an *opponent* from discovering and/or using a party's work
product. Here, the TC is representative of the DOJ. Since the TC is
a representative of the DOJ, the TC and the DOJ are in a sense the
same party. MICROSOFT is the DOJ's opponent. IV.D.4.d. prevents a
party from using its own work product to prosecute an opponent. In
other words, IV.D.4.d. prevents the DOJ from using its own work
product against its opponent, MICROSOFT.
Since IV.D.4.d. prevents the DOJ from using its own work product
against its opponent, MICROSOFT, IV.D.4.d. stands the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on their head. For IV.D.4.d. to be in the public
interest, it must be rewritten to *require* that the work product,
findings, and recommendations of the TC and testimony of the TC be
admissible evidence in *any* legal proceeding, in this or any other
country or region like the European Union. In other words, IV.D.4.d.
should be rewritten as follows: The work product, findings or
recommendations by the TC shall be admitted in every enforcement
proceeding before the Court for any purpose, and all members of the
TC shall testify by deposition, in Court and/or before every other
tribunal that calls upon the TC for testimony, regarding every
matter related to the Final Judgment.
48.V.Termination, B. V.B. is an illusory and thus ineffective
remedy. V.B. allows the Court to extend this proposed Final Judgment
when MICROSOFT is found to have engaged in "a pattern of
*knowing, willful and systematic violations*". As stated above
in OBJECTION 35. regarding IV.A.4., proving a *knowing, willful or
systematic* violation is extremely difficult. Furthermore, as stated
above in OBJECTION 6. regarding III.C.1., the DOJ does not want to
enforce this proposed Final Judgment. Since proving "knowing,
willful or systematic violations" is so difficult, and the DOJ
does not want to enforce this proposed Final Judgment, *in practice*
MICROSOFT will *never* be charged with a *knowing, willful and
systematic violation of this proposed Final Judgment. Since *in
practice* MICROSOFT will *never* be charged with a *knowing, willful
or systematic violation of this proposed Final Judgment, this Court
will never find MICROSOFT to have engaged in "a pattern of
*knowing, willful and systematic violations*". Since this
Court will never find MICROSOFT to have engaged in "a pattern
of *knowing, willful and systematic violations*", V.B. is an
illusory and thus ineffective remedy. As a sidenote, the inclusion
of V.B.is kind of amusing. As detailed in the above 47 OBJECTIONS,
this entire proposed Final Judgment contains so many exceptions that
allow MICROSOFT to continue violating the antitrust laws that
MICROSOFT will probably never be in violation of it. Furthermore,
the DOJ's reluctance to oppose MICROSOFT's demands in any way
indicates that the DOJ will probably never enforce this proposed
Final Judgment against MICROSOFT. Thus, given the extreme
unlikeliness that this proposed Final Judgment will ever be
violated, let alone enforced, including a provision to extend this
proposed Final Judgment appears farcical. For V.B. to be in the
public interest, the conditions for extending this proposed Final
Judgment should be changed to *any* violation of Local, State,
National, or International law. In other words, V.B. should be
rewritten as: In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has
found that Microsoft has violated any Local, State, National, or
International law, the Court shall extend this Final Judgment for at
least two years, together with such other relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.
49.VI.Definitions, B. As stated above in OBJECTION 16. regarding
III.E., VI.B. defines Communications Protocols too narrowly. Since
VI.B. defines Communications Protocols too narrowly, VI.B. should be
rewritten as explained in OBJECTION 16. regarding III.E. In other
words, VI.B. should be rewritten as follows:
"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. These rules govern the format, semantics, timing,
sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network.
[END OF VI.B.]
50.VI.Definitions, J.1. The definition of "MICROSOFT
Middleware" is too restrictive. Specifically, VI.J.1.,
VI.J.2., and the conjunctive ending VI.J.3. are too restrictive.
VI.J.1. states:
"Microsoft Middleware" means software code that
1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating
System Product to update that Windows Operating System Product;
J.1. is too restrictive in requiring that the software code be
distributed separately from the Windows Operating System Product.
MICROSOFT has a history of bundling Middleware into its Windows
Operating System Products to destroy competing Middleware. For
example, MICROSOFT bundled Internet Explorer into its Windows 98
operating system product to destroy the competing Netscape
COMMUNICATOR web browser. MICROSOFT subsequently bundled its
streaming media player, WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER, into its Windows XP
operating system product to destroy the competing Real
Networks" REAL PLAYER streaming media player. Since MICROSOFT
has a history of bundling Middleware into its Windows Operating
System Products to
[[Page 27052]]
destroy competing Middleware, MICROSOFT can avoid the requirements
of VI.J.1. by bundling all of its Middleware into its Windows
Operating System Products. Since MICROSOFT can avoid the
requirements of VI.J.1. by bundling all of its Middleware into its
Windows Operating System Products, VI.J.1. is too restrictive.
For VI.J.1. to be in the public interest, the requirements of
VI.J.1. should be changed to software code that competitors
distribute or that was not bundled into previous Windows Operating
System Products. In other words, VI.J.1. should be rewritten as
follows:
1. competitors distribute as a Middleware Product or that was
not bundled into previous Windows Operating System Products;
51.VI.Definitions, J.2. The requirement of VI.J.2. is too
restrictive. J.2. states: "Microsoft Middleware" means
software code that ... 2.is trademarked;
Whether or not software code is trademarked is irrelevant to
whether or not the code is Middleware. For example, MICRSOFT did not
own the trademark to INTERNET EXPLORER when it released the product.
Since MICROSOFT did not own the trademark to INTERNET EXPLORER when
it released the product, INTERNET EXPLORER arguably did not qualify
as MICROSOFT Middleware under J.2. Since trademarking software code
is irrelevant to whether or not the code is Middleware, VI.J.2. is
too restrictive.
For VI.J. to be in the public interest, VI.J.2. should be
deleted. 52.VI.Definitions, J.3. The conjunctive ending VI.J.3. is
too restrictive. VI.J.3. states: "Microsoft Middleware"
means software code that ...
3.provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a
Microsoft Middleware Product; *and* The conjunctive
"and" is restrictive, requiring software code to meet
all 4 criteria listed in VI.J. to qualify as "Microsoft
Middleware". As stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the
second paragraph, MICROSOFT lost this case. Since MICROSOFT lost
this case, the DOJ should not concede anything to MICROSOFT,
including the definition of "Microsoft Middleware". In
other words, the DOJ should define "Microsoft
Middleware" as broadly as possible. To define "Microsoft
Middleware" as broadly as possible, VI.J. should use the
conjunctive "or", which requires software code to meet
only 1 of the 4 criteria listed in VI.J. to qualify as MICROSOFT
Middleware. Since VI.J. does not use the conjunctive
"or" to end VI.J.3., the conjunctive ending VI.J.3. is
too restrictive.
For VI.J.3. to be in the public interest, the conjunctive ending
VI.J.3. should be changed from "and" to
"or". In other words, VI.J.3. should be rewritten as
follows:
3.provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a
Microsoft Middleware Product; *or* 53.VI.Definitions, J. The
paragraph ending VI.J. is too restrictive and too lenient to
MICROSOFT. The last paragraph of VI.J. states:
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. ...
In other words, this paragraph allows MICROSOFT to avoid
designating software code as MICROSOFT Middleware by not identifying
it as a new major version of a MICROSOFT Middleware Product. Since
this paragraph allows MICROSOFT to avoid designating software code
as MICROSOFT Middleware by not identifying it as a new major version
of a MICROSOFT Middleware Product, this paragraph is too restrictive
as to what qualifies as MICROSOFT Middleware.
As stated above in OBJECTION 52. regarding VI.J.3., the DOJ
should define "Microsoft Middleware" as broadly as
possible. To define "Microsoft Middleware" as broadly as
possible, thte last paragraph should be deleted. Thus, for VI.J. to
be in the public interest, the last paragraph of VI.J. should be
deleted.
54.VI.Definitions, K.2.b.ii. The definition of "Microsoft
Middleware Product" in VI.K. is too restrictive and this too
lenient to MICROSOFT. Specifically, the conjunctive ending
VI.K.2.b.ii. and VI.K.2.b.iii. are too restrictive. VI.K.2.b.ii.
states:
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product; *and* For the same reasons stated in OBJECTION
52. regarding III.J.3., the conjunctive ending VI.K.2.b.ii. should
be changed from "and" to "or". In other
words, for VI.K.2.b.ii. to be in the public interest, it should be
rewritten as follows:
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product; *or* 55.VI.Definitions, K.2.b.iii. The
requirement of K.2.b.iii. is too restrictive for the same reasons
stated in OBJECTION 51. regarding VI.J.2. For K.2.b. to be in the
public interest, K.2.b.iii. should be deleted.
56.VI.Definitions, N. The definition of "Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product" in VI.N. is too restrictive for the
reasons stated in OBJECTION 22. regarding III.H. For VI.N. to be in
the public interest, requirement "(ii)" of "Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product" must be deleted. In other words,
VI.N. should be rewritten as follows:
"Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" means a non-
Microsoft software product running on a Windows Operating System
Product that exposes a range of funtionality to ISVs through
published APIs and that could, if ported to or made interoperable
with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for
applications that rely in whole or in part on the funtionality
supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that
non-Microsoft Operating System. [END OF VI.N.]
57.VI.Definitions, P. For the same reasons stated in OBJECTION
52. regarding VI.J.3., the definition of "Operating
System" in VI.P. is too restrictive. For VI.P. to be in the
public interest, the conjunctive ending VI.P.(ii) must be changed
from "and" to "or". In other words, VI.P.
should be rewritten as follows:
"Operating System" means the software code that,
inter alia
(i) controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such
as the microprocessor and various peripheral devices) of a Personal
Computer,
(ii) provides a platform for developing applications by exposing
functionality to ISVs through APIs, *or*
(iii) supplies a user interface that enables users to access
functionality of the operating system and in which they can run
applications. .
58.VI.Definitions, Q. The definition of "Personal
Computer" in VI.Q. is too restrictive. In particular, the
second sentence of VI.Q. exempting certain devices from the
definition of "Personal Computer" is too lenient to
MICROSOFT. The second sentence of VI.Q. states:
... Servers, television set top boxes, handheld computers, game
consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are
examples of products that are not Personal Computers within the
meaning of this definition.
As stated above in the GENERAL OBJECTIONS, the purpose of an
antitrust action is to stop monopolizing behavior and to prevent
future monopolizing behavior. Here, MICROSOFT is leveraging their
monopoly in the Personal Computer ("PC") market to
monopolize the markets for these other products. By excluding these
other devices from the definition of PC, VI.Q. allows MICROSOFT to
continue leveraging their monopoly in the PC market to monopolize
the markets for these other products. Since the purpose of an
antitrust action is to stop monopolizing behavior and to prevent
future monopolizing behavior, and MICROSOFT is here using their
current monopoly to pursue future monopolies in these other markets,
VI.Q. defeats the purpose of this antitrust action. Since VI.Q.
defeats the purpose of this antitrust action, VI.Q. is too
restrictive.
In addition, the first sentence of VI.Q. is too restrictive. The
first sentence of VI.Q. defines a PC as a computer containing an
Intel x86 compatible processor. Since APPLE computers contain
Motorola processors, which are not x86 compatible, VI.Q. excludes
APPLE computers from the definition of PC. However, MICROSOFT sells
software that runs on APPLE computers, such as MICROSOFT Office
Suite and Internet Explorer. Futhermore, as explained in Judge
Jackson's Findings of Facts, MICROSOFT conditioned continued
releases of its Office Suite on APPLE only using Internet Explorer
as the web browser for their computers. Since MICROSOFT conditioned
continued releases of its Office Suite on APPLE only using Internet
Explorer as the web browser for their computers, MICROSOFT's
monopolizing behavior has affected the software market for APPLE
computers. Since MICROSOFT's monopolizing behavior has affected the
software market for APPLE computers, the definition of PC should
include APPLE computers. Since the definition of PC in VI.Q. does
not include APPLE computers, VI.Q. is too restrictive.
For VI.Q. to be in the public interest, the definition of PC
must include APPLE computers and all other electronic devices for
which MICROSOFT sells software. In other words, VI.Q. should be
rewritten as follows:
"Personal Computer" means any computer configured,
or which can be configured, to run MICROSOFT software, including but
not limited to, computers containing an Intel x86 processor or a
Motorola processor, servers,
[[Page 27053]]
television set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles,
telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants.
59.VI.Definitions, S. For the same reasons stated in OBJECTION
52. regarding VI.J.3., the definition of "Top-Level
Window" in VI.S. is too restrictive. For VI.S. to be in the
public interest, the conjunctive ending VI.S.(b) must be changed
from "and" to "or". In other words, VI.S.
should be rewritten as follows:
"Top-Level Window" means a window displayed by a
Windows Operating System Product that (a) has its own window
controls, such as move, resize, close, minimize, and maximize, (b)
can contain sub-windows, *or* (c) contains user interface elements
under the control of at least one independent process.
60.VI.Definitions, U. The definition of "Windows Operating
System Product" in VI.U. is too restrictive. As stated in
OBJECTION 58. regarding VI.P., MICROSOFT is leveraging their
monopoly in the PC market into other product markets. Since
MICROSOFT is leveraging their monopoly in the PC market into other
product markets, VI.U. should define "Windows Operating System
Product" to prevent MICROSOFT from leveraging their monopoly
in the PC market into other product markets. Since the definition of
"Windows Operating System Products" in VI.U. does not
include MICROSOFT operating systems for servers, television set top
boxes, handheld computers, game consoles, telephones, pagers, and
personal digital assistants, VI.U. is too restrictive.
For VI.U. to be in the public interest, the definition of
"Windows Operating System Product" in VI.U. must include
*all* of MICROSOFT's operating systems. In other words, VI.U. must
be rewritten as follows: "Windows Operating System
Product" means the software code that MICROSOFT distributes
for use with *any electronic device*.
61.VI.Definitions, U. The second sentence of VI.U. is too
lenient to MICROSOFT. The second sentence states:
The software code that comprises a Windows Operating System
Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion. As
stated above in OBJECTION 1. regarding the second paragraph,
MICROSOFT lost this case. Since MICROSOFT lost this case, the DOJ
should not concede anything to MICROSOFT, including the definition
of what comprises a Windows Operating System Product. Since the DOJ
should not concede the definition of what comprises a Windows
Operating System Product, VI.U. should *not* allow MICROSOFT to
determine what comprises a Windows Operating System Product. Since
VI.U. allows MICROSOFT to determine what comprises a Windows
Operating System Product, VI.U. is too lenient to MICROSOFT.
For VI.U. to be in the public interest, the second sentence of
VI.U. must be deleted. For the above reasons stated in the General
and Specific Objections, I respectfully submit that this proposed
Final Judgment is *not* in the public interest. I further submit
that even if this proposed Final Judgment is rewritten as the above
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS recommend, it still will not be in the public
interest because the DOJ will not enforce it. Since the proposed
Final Judgment will not be in the public interest even if rewritten
as the above SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS recommend, I respectfully submit
that the DOJ and the Court should reject this proposed Final
Judgment and adopt Judge Jackson's remedies.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel Maddux
4100 Greenbriar Street
Number 342
Houston, Texas 77098
MTC-00021588
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05am
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,
Jeff Richter
P.O. Box 1648
T or C, NM 87901
MTC-00021589
From: Patrick Wyatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I wanted to respond to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
Through the course of my career in computer programming, Microsoft
has been both an ally and a competitor, so while I don't think that
I'm unbiased I believe that I have some insight into both sides of
the case. Microsoft has always been a fearsome competitor because of
their control of the operating system and their ongoing ability to
leverage that control to create other business opportunities, like
giving users simple and easy access to MSN and Hotmail over other
competing alternatives. Going forward, I think that this is just the
first small vision of what we'll see in the long term, where
Microsoft's power enables them to dominate significantly larger
parts of our lives. While this isn't technically illegal, it does
give me pause, because too much power concentrated in one location
can easily create tyranny.
Without being too long-winded, the solution that I wanted to
mention for your consideration is this: make Microsoft convert their
"Office Suite" of programs to run on other operating
systems. Inasmuch as Office already runs on the Macintosh, I expect
that they would be able to make it run on the open-source Unix
environments like OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux, all of which
are quite similar in terms of their interoperability. These
operating systems would benefit greatly from having a solid,
professional suite of office productivity applications, and would
somewhat mitigate Microsoft's ability to dominate the operating
system market going forward and hence reduce the concentration of
power they now have.
I realize that this proposal would require considerably more
thought before implementation, but I wanted to bring the idea up for
your consideration. I hope that whatever settlement does eventually
get approved does take into consideration not just remedies to
correct past wrongs, but also creates mechanisms which will create a
free marketplace and reduce the opportunity for dominance by a
single entity.
Best of luck, I'm expect that you'll need a fair bit of it
before the process is complete!
Patrick Wyatt
MTC-00021590
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05am
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,
George DeVry
803 Magnolia Ave
Corona, CA 92879-3193
MTC-00021591
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08am
Subject: settlement
I think Microsoft has unjustly been picked on. They are the top
in the computer world and everyone wants to knock them off. They
have great products and have changed the technological world.
Thank you
CC:[email protected]@inet
gw
MTC-00021592
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:06am
[[Page 27054]]
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,
Jeffrey A. Carlson
5950 NW Scheel Terrace
Portland, OR 97229-7957
MTC-00021593
From: Deborah Tribble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is getting off easy, their history of unfair and
unethical business practices prove that they cannot be trusted to
act in the best interest of their industry or customers. The
settlement does not come close to an appropriate reprimand. Please
reconsider the terms of the agreement.
MTC-00021594
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07am
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,
Robert Reneau
27 Loggerhead Lane
Ponte Vedra, FL 32082
MTC-00021595
From: LEONARD LIVSCHITZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly dissagree with the proposed settlement
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
MTC-00021596
From: Oystein Lunde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I truly believe this is a bad settlement.
Best regards,
Oystein Lunde
MTC-00021597
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07am
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,
Skip Queen
2539 Rector Ave
Orlando, FL 32818-3954
MTC-00021598
From: Jan (038) Bill Leth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft
We currently use Microsoft products and are also concerned
Microsoft stockholders. The purpose of this letter is to express our
opinions regarding the settlement made between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice. As tax payers and Microsoft stockholders, we
feel that to continue litigations would simply be a waste of time
and money. Microsoft has agreed to many terms and conditions, which
should allow other companies to compete with Microsoft effectively.
For instance, Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of
Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows XP, to provide
a mechanism to make it easier for computer makers, consumers, and
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within
Windows. This mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to
features built into Windows or non-Windows software.
Overall, we feel that Microsoft has done all, if not more than
it should have. The settlement should be finalized and all
litigations ended.
Sincerely
William H. and Janet E. Leth
2603 Borst Avenue
Centralia, WA 98531-1415
MTC-00021599
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to support settlement made between DoJ and
Microsoft. I learnt that the settlement is now in the Tunney Act
review period. I am therefore writing to state that making the
settlement stayed "as-is" is in the public interest.
The whole law-suit between DoJ and Microsoft might haved started
with good intention. Unfortunately, time has changed, the industry
has changed, companies" attitude have either changed or
revealed its true self. In particular, the private suit filed
against Microsoft in the last few days is simply a demonstration of
corporate greed rather than the interest of the public. Please do
not be distracted in any way by this stupid suit which is nothing
but another demonstration of the abuse of the American legal system,
tax-payers" money, and time & resource of government
officials that can be better spent on the more pressing issues like
terrorism.
Once again, I believe that the settlement made will meet the
public interest. The time of our society should be spent on other
matters that are more meaningful.
Thank you for the attention to this communications.
Yours truly,
Patrick Yu
An American citizen
Residence of San Jose, California
MTC-00021600
From: jkimura(a)attglobal.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement does not adequately
restrict Microsoft's anticompetetive business practices. Accepting
the settlement will not be in the public interest. I am opposed to
it.
James H. Kimura, Ph.D.
End User
MTC-00021601
From: LaGrua Jeffrey A NORC
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am shocked and appalled at the laxity of this proposed
settlement. As a former U.S. Marine and Gulf War veteran I have
friends who were wounded in combat, and even died on foreign soil
fighting for what this country stands for. If they saw that *this*
insulting mockery of (alleged) justice was what they fought and died
for, I'd hate to see how they
[[Page 27055]]
would feel. It's a joke and a slap in the face to all law-abiding
citizens to see this megalithic juggernaut get away with the crime
of the century just because it has the deepest pockets, the most
market power, and the most "juice on the beltway". I
know that it is a matter fact that large companies, like Microsoft,
contribute money to both sides of the political fence as a way of
hedging their bets and ultimately getting their fat pulled from the
fire when the "merde" hits this
"ventilateur", but I am urging you not to let Microsoft
turn our justice system into "the best that money can
buy".
Respectfully,
Jeff A. La Grua, Corporal
USMC, Former
"It's GOD's responsibility to forgive Bin Laden... It's
our responsibility
to arrange the meeting."
- Anonymous US Marine
MTC-00021602
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09am
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,
Ralph Bryant
1249 Creighton Ave
Dayton, OH 45420
MTC-00021603
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07am
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,
Maureen Waite
1501 Oberlin Terrace
Lake Mary, FL 32746-0000
MTC-00021604
From: Hobson, Terrance D
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00021605
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08am
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,
marie black
17 Colony Drive
Fredericktown, OH 43019
MTC-00021606
From: Mike Graessle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer user for the last 10 years, I have watched
Microsoft stomp on every perceived threat or competitor. I would
like it boycott Microsoft but that isn't an option. I have no choice
but to use Microsoft products and the proposed settlement will do
nothing to change this.
A just penalty, I continue, would at barest minimum include
three additional features: Any remedy seeking to prevent an
extension of Microsoft's monopoly must place Microsoft products as
extra-cost options in the purchase of new computers, so that the
user who does not wish to purchase them is not forced to do so. This
means that for the price differential between a new computer with
Microsoft software and one without, a computer seller must offer the
software without the computer (which would prevent computer makers
from saying that the difference in price is only a few dollars).
Only then could competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
"hooks" that allow other parties to write applications
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the
proposed settlement.
Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
Thank you.
Michael C. Graessle
ph: (314) 301-2587 fax: (314) 919-1452
[email protected]
MTC-00021607
From: Fischer Mark S CONT KPWA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your proposed settlement has more holes then a block of swiss
cheese and you be assured that Microsoft will use the loophole your
weak settlement has in it.
MTC-00021608
From: Jennifer Woelke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement" Do not let them get away
with this. It is not right. Jennifer A Woelke
MTC-00021609
From: mark galvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Not only does it
not solve Microsoft's anti-competitive activities, it allows them
access to a market (education) where they are not a clear leader,
thus helping them to expand their monopoly even further.
MTC-00021610
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10am
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.
[[Page 27056]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Rogers
29039 E. Gibson Point Road
Gravois Mills, MO 65037
MTC-00021611
From: Fred Hammer
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
Subject: netscape suit
the last thing the industry and our country needs is more
litigation on frivolous issues such as netscapes' allegations.
I used to use Netscape, but have switched to Internet Explorer
out of my own volition and choice. Others have chosen Netscape. Let
the market-and consumers decide.
Quit the legal bleeding-our economy needs to move forward
Fred E. Hammer
17292 Cornerstone Lane
Parker CO 80134
MTC-00021612
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09am
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,
Sandy Winston
po box 664
morro bay, CA 93443
MTC-00021613
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09am
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,
Betty Arnold
71 Wiggins Lane
Hattiesburg, MS 39402-9719
MTC-00021614
From: Bill Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice,
I am grateful that the Tunney Act requires the acceptance of
public comment on a case such as Microsoft's.
This particular comment focuses on Microsoft's behavior with
respect to the Java programming language. In summary, I believe that
any settlement agreement must strictly require Microsoft to either
support cross-platform compatibility standards, or to assist third
parties in developing support for them, in Microsoft Windows, and to
allow their inclusion, in fully-functioning and fully-compatible
form, on newly purchased computers running Windows. A few examples
of such standards are Posix, Java, TCP/IP, .NET, Open/GL, Kerberos,
and NFS.
Summary: As a professional programmer, I have been dismayed at
the results of Microsoft's oppressive response to Java. When Bill
Gosling and a team of engineers at Sun Microsystems invented Java,
they created a foundation for software that could run on any
operating system, transparently, without recompilation. Microsoft
appears to have seen this as a threat and has tried to both fragment
and debilitate Java, using the leverage of its operating system
monopoly. Microsoft's attacks have limited Java's potential to make
computing easier and more universal, and appear to have been
motivated not by any technological motivation, but merely by the
desire to maintain a monopoly on operating systems.
Java's Potential: Java is a language that simply takes modern
computer language principles, implements them elegantly and simply,
and uses them to provide a means to write software that will run on
virtually any computer. Microsoft was one of its first adopters.
Microsoft licensed Java from Sun Microsystems and quickly developed,
for Windows, one of the best environments to develop and run Java
programs. At the same time, many other companies had developed or
licensed Java environments, including IBM and Netscape.
Microsoft's Actions: In addition to building a fantastic Java
system for Windows, Microsoft also immediately snubbed its license
contract with Sun, by removing certain parts (Java Native Interface,
or JNI) of the Java language from its own implementation and
substituting its own (Component Object Model, or COM). The effect
was to make Microsoft's Java subtly but very deliberately
incompatible with Sun's standard. Full compatibility would have been
required if Java was to become an OS-neutral platform. When Sun
protested, Microsoft simply refused to comply with the contract it
has previously agreed to. A long court battle ensued, with the
result that Microsoft ceased active development on Java, ultimately
disabling it by default in Windows XP. There appear to have been no
technological reasons for Microsoft's actions. It is understandable
that Microsoft would want to add extensions to Java to connect it to
Windows (COM), but that extension could have been added
1.without breaking compatibility with Sun's standard (in fact,
it has been added in such a fashion by other software companies as
Java-COM bridges), and
2.without modifying an important part of Sun's specification for
Java (JNI).
Recourse: I believe that since Microsoft has a monopoly on
desktop operating systems for Intel x86 architecture computers, and
since it is in the public interest that those computers be as fully
functional as possible, and not artificially limited in
functionality solely to allow Microsoft to retain its monopoly,
Microsoft Windows should be strictly required to interoperate with
cross-platform standards. Interoperability need not be the sole
responsibility of Microsoft, but I believe that Microsoft must
1.provide the documentation necessary to achieve interoperability,
and 2.not hinder interoperation by compromising standards or by
restricting deployment of software on new computers.
Sincerely,
Bill Baker
Software Engineer
[email protected]
http://www.orangecrayon.com
MTC-00021615
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
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,
Sharon Enos
6657 Heron Way
Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026
MTC-00021616
From: Cox, William R
[[Page 27057]]
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.'
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement is indeed in the public interest, for
the past ten years I have worked in the IT world. I have seen
Microsoft products get better cheaper and easier to maintain. This
has led to the ability of even small business to reap rewards from
new technologies without having a full time IT staff.
I use other products (SUN/Linux/Oracle) but I see these
companies as failing to invest as heavily in the type of R&D
that brings us the improvements that MS garners.
Companies such as AOL,Netscape,Sun,Orcle seem to be asking for
some court room help for their inability to compete.
Sun & Oracle for years had an iron grip on the consumer,
companies I worked for paid extremely high licensing fees for
products that were at best cryptic to use and maintain. Now that MS
has brought us better products at for much less they should be
rewarded not punished.
I only hope that MS is left to it's own means to innovate and
continually bring us better and cheaper products. Thanks, W. Cox
Scottsdale, Arizona CC:'MSFIN(a)microsoft.com"
MTC-00021617
From: Steven Work
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is grossly unfair
to all computer users in this country.
Microsoft has single-handedly strangled small software
businesses which tried to offer software which might compete with
Microsoft, and provide useful, secure, or original solutions to
users.
A settlement is needed that would significantly penalize
Microsoft, and also encourage competition in OS and Application
development.
Sincerely,
Steven Work
[email protected]
802-656-7867, fax:(802)656-0747
Health Science Research Facility
Rm: 115A, Dept. of Mol. Physiology
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT USA 05405
"Home of the Light Tweezers"
MTC-00021618
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you in reference to the recent settlement between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I have been opposed to the
government's intervention in Microsoft's success from the very
beginning. It seems ridiculous to have the government protesting
against the whole aspect of free enterprise, when free enterprise is
exactly what America has been founded on. More than this, it is
puzzling to see, even after Microsoft has complied with the
settlement, that there may be even more delays in this process.
I urge you to support this settlement in its current form, and
hope you will stop any further actions against this agreement. As
our economy weakens, it is evident that we have to support our
technology industries. As our IT sector stands by and waits for the
government to allow this process to move forward, the global market
is sailing past us. That is why if we allow the terms of this
agreemnet to speak for themselves, then we would benefit the
consumer, the technology industry, and our economy as a whole.
Let's not be the ones to slow down the growth of our own
economy. Let's make sure that this agreement is pushed forward and
allowed to take hold. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
McDonald Wellford, Jr.
530 Wykehurst Drive
Richmond, VA 23233
MTC-00021619
From: Andrew Misyura
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00021620
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Enough is enough. Please put a stop to the economically-draining
witch-hunt against Microsoft. Microsoft has already agreed to hide
its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop. The issue is resolved.
The fact is, this case against Microsoft is basically
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors.
Not a nickel goes 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,
Karyn Morton
1030 E El Camino Real
133
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
MTC-00021621
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
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,
AL BELFIORE
3253 GIEGERICH PL.
BRONX, NY 10465-4011
MTC-00021622
From: Freda Douglas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:15am
Subject: microsoft settlement
For far too long I have witnessed the political prosecution of
Microsoft. Ever since I have been aware of the so called anti-trust
suits I have asked myself why would anybody want to prosecute a
company just because the man at the top is so much smarter than his
peers in other companies. We certainly have more to worry about than
poor losers who can't admit anybody else is smarter than they are.
Jealously hurts the corporate big shot as much as the little man who
is jealous of his wife for no reason.
Let's quit the bickering and let Microsoft go back to doing what
they do best-keeping their customers happy.
Freda Douglas
Hardee County, FL
MTC-00021623
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
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,
Arno Schelhorn
[[Page 27058]]
224 W. Maplemere
Williamsville, NY 14221-3156
MTC-00021624
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
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,
Richard Tschauder
732 Sunrise Street
Rathdrum, ID 83858
MTC-00021625
From: Ross Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I just wanted to say that I think the proposed Microsoft
Settlement is bad.
Thank you.
Ross Peterson
President, Trilocal Inc.
Missoula, Montana
MTC-00021626
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
With all due respect, I disagree with the proposed antitrust
settlement between DOJ and Microsoft. The root of the problem in
this case is the monopoly powers that Microsoft undeniably holds but
more troubling is how they have used it illegally to
"twist" other companies into their way or no way.
I am against this settlement. This does nothing to improve the
competetive landscape. Thank you.
Kamal Maheshwari.
MTC-00021627
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
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,
Renee Rodriguez
6985 Big Timber Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
MTC-00021628
From: Reilly, Andrew
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement proposed for the M$ antitrust suit is a sham! You
aren't seeking remedies that would punish or curb the monopolistic
behavior of Microsoft. Clearly, you would ask that the browser be
removed from the Operating system if you were seeking even the
minimum amount of recourse for their transgressions.
No, you apparently have caved to the wishes of big money in
politics by choosing to ignore all evidence. They took a separate
software product and started to irreversibly place it in their OS
product. This is illegal, and the purpose of the Sherman antitrust
laws. Yet you ignore the basics of this case. Clearly your
department is not of Justice, rather more like the SS of a new
fascist regime. Was it the legislative losers that take large sums
from companies like Microsoft that asked you to ignore the evidence?
Or is it as all would conclude, that the new administration
stuck it's nose in and said, "Give old Billy Gates and his
goons the green light for consumer raping." Either way you
should in no way settle for the lopsided, loop-hole riddled
"settlement" that you are seeking comment on.
A. Reilly
MTC-00021629
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
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,
Dale Fair
436 S Morgantown Rd
Greenwood, IN 46142
MTC-00021630
From: Thom Cleland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I am distressed by the weakness of DOJ's "proposed final
judgment" with Microsoft (US vs. Microsoft). Microsoft's
offenses have been firmly and clearly established in findings of
fact as well as by numerous third parties not financially influenced
by the settlement terms. This settlement, despite its rhetoric, is
fundamentally a full concession to Microsoft that does a disservice
both to the American justice system and to consumers.
Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, the public is never
served well by monopoly. If Microsoft's products are as good as they
claim, then they should not need privileged access to the operating
system based on secret APIs in order to win customers. Certainly
Microsoft should be disallowed from using coercive tactics against
original equipment manufacturers to bundle Microsoft products with
their own-yet Sections III.A-B. clearly permit this practice:
one of the primary and most egregious offenses that initiated this
lawsuit in the first place.
Microsoft has squelched far more innovation in computer hardware
and software than it has enabled. This lawsuit has the potential to
structure the playing field so that Microsoft can compete fairly on
its merits, without the temptation or ability to "cheat"
based on its financial and political power. The present PFJ ensures
that this will not occur, and should be rejected in favor of a
strong, clearly enforceable statement restricting Microsoft's
behavior, punishing their scorn for the Justice Department's
inquiry, and creating a strong, stable playing field that will
foster innovation from a diversity of companies and individuals,
including
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Dr. Thomas A. Cleland
MTC-00021631
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14am
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
[[Page 27059]]
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,
Mike Holeton
12576 148th Ave
West Burlington, IA 52655
MTC-00021632
From: Paul Ludecke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I take issue with the proposed settlement issue of Microsoft
donating software to the public school system.
Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopoly, and has
been found guilty of harm thru monopolistic actions. Significant and
measureable harm.
Harm to an essential engine of American industry.
Offering Microsoft a settlement by allowing them to essentially
"print money" (thru the donation of their software
products to parties that wouldn't otherwise purchase the products
anyway) at cents on the dollar is absurd, and cynical. This smarmy
collusion between government and corporate interests offers up a
mighty stink that everyone can recognize, from the common Joe to the
corporate executive.
If the government really wanted to cook up a deal with some
teeth involving Microsoft products, I would suggest this:
A government-wide free site license (in perpetuity, or for a
significant number of years) of Microsoft products.
Microsoft would see significant impact on their bottom line, and
the American taxpayer would see significant relief thru a drop in
Government spending on software.
-Paul Ludecke
MTC-00021633
From: Art Liles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
In regards to the litigation between AOL and Microsoft, I firmly
believe AOL is way out of line. The founders of Microsoft were
people who followed the American dream. They used thier knowledge
and talent to build a company that has forever lead the world market
in computer programs, operating systems and yes, the Internet
Explorer browser.
America was founded on competition. We strive economicaly on
competition. But if one builds, designs and markets something better
than another, why knock him down and drag him through court from it?
Do Ford and GM design, build and market their cars and trucks
competitively and then drag each other down and through the courts
when one offers better deals, service or incentives? I personally
have used each of the two web browsers and Internet Explorer does
offer a better experience to the user in most all ways one could
compare them. My personal views. But as AOL forces it's users to be
advertised to, as it does, in order to use it, AOL advertising
intergration into AOL is no different than Microsoft intergrating IE
into it's Operating Systems. You have the choices to buy/use or not.
It is how they each have chosen to do for their own reasons. I feel
that "Windows" really does benefit from the way IE is
made apart of it. As I do have the choice to add Netscape to my
system and use it and not IE to browse, then Microsoft has not made
Netscape any less of a product or hindered it a choice to use.
Netscape is just not as good as Internet Explorer!
Creative design and marketing should be encouraged and praised.
Even if a fortune and empire is built from it. All AOL-Time Warner
needs to do is develope a better operating system and then make
Netscape apart of it. They were founded on selling products and
advertising, not technology to better the american way of life
through computers as Microsoft had done. You slap Microsoft down for
what AOL wants and you slap down the American Dream in all of us.
Microsoft became what it is today because it lead the
"world" in design and marketing while making it
affordable for all of us to have. What's AOL done but create a
private community for it's users and placed them into a world of
"forced" advertising to be apart of it. Case closed.
Sincerely yours
Authur Liles 01/29/2002 9:31
MTC-00021634
From: sharon Enos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle and stop all the money grabbers.
Sincerely, Sharon Enos
MTC-00021635
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:16am
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,
Randy Norton
877 Valley Chapel Road
Walla Walla, WA 99362
MTC-00021636
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Attorney General
While I believe free markets are the best way to move technology
forward, I also believe that for this to occur that one player
cannot be allowed to use its power to suppress competition unless
others have the power to act in concert to overcome or suppress that
single player. If the gloves are to be off for MicroSoft then they
should be off for Netscape, Apple, Redhat, Adobe, IBM, AOL,Omni etc.
Allowing Microsoft as part of an antitrust settlement to suppress
competition further by giving software and computers to poor schools
seems unfair because those who abided by the law and their customers
have already been damaged. Poor schools are not the only ones
damaged by MS, everyday consumers have also been damaged. It would
seem more equitable to give consumers or if need be poor schools a
voucher redeemable only for non MS products.
William M Clayton
MTC-00021637
From: Jim Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:42am
Subject: Settlement comments.
The settlement sucks. I am opposed to the settlement as it
stands.
Jim Smith
MTC-00021638
From: Auguste Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs/Mesdames:
I read with dismay that Netscape, really its parent AOL, has
initiated a lawsuit against Microsoft. Certainly everyone knows that
the timing of the lawsuit during the hearing process was intentional
and not in the best interests of justice.
AOL and Microsoft have battled for many years. This latest move
is just another example of the extent to which AOL and other
competitors of Microsoft will go to cause a hardship to Microsoft.
Foremost in everyone's mind should be how much Microsoft has
done for the consumer, for the country and for the world and how
much they have improved the education of our children. Petty fights
about Instant Messaging and the like show that AOL is not objective
and is more concerned with their corporate success than they are
with the good of the country.
I hope that the DOJ does not allow corporate politics to
influence justice.
Auguste Schwab
6281 Evian Place
Boynton Beach FL 33437
MTC-00021639
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27060]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:16am
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,
royce stowe
425 dove lane
Fort Worth, TX 76108
MTC-00021640
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:16am
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,
Melvin Wellons
987 S. Post Oak Ln.
Houston, TX 77056-2203
MTC-00021641
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:18am
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,
Diahann Harris
9830 Allesandro Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
MTC-00021642
From: McLanahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attached is a letter for Judge Kollar-Kotally with respect to
the Microsoft settlement.
Bruce McLanahan
81 Woodway Ridge Lane
New Canaan CT 06840
Tel 203 966 4895
Fax 203 966 9690
Cellphone 203 247 5429 (often turned off))
e-mail: [email protected]
CC: Chris Senecal
MTC-00021642-0001
Bruce McLanahan
81 Woodway Ridge Lane
New Canaan, CT 06840
(203) 966-4895
January 24, 2002
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
Proposed Settlement would Expand Microsoft Monopoly. I urge you
to carefully consider Connecticut's position opposing the settlement
of the Microsoft antitrust case. In a lengthy and widely publicized
trial, a court found that Microsoft illegally monopolized the market
for computer operating systems. The Department of Justice proposed
settlement, in the view of many, would permit Microsoft to expand
its monopoly powers.
The Threat to Users of Windows. Objections to an antitrust
settlement may seem arcane-but the practical implications are
far reaching. An economist recently testified in the private
antitrust hearing that Microsoft used its monopoly power to
overcharge the consumer by 85 billion for Windows. Other economists
have suggested higher figures.
Proposed Settlement is too Weak. What does this have to do with
the proposed Microsoft settlement? The settlement attempts to
protect other producers of software from Microsoft's use of its
monopoly position in the Windows operating systems. However, it
unfortunately falls far short. As Attorney General Blumenthal
stated, "the settlement simply has too many gaps and
ambiguities that undermine the remedies necessary against
substantial violations of law found by two federal courts." In
the details, there are so many limitations that it will be business
as usual for Microsoft. Additionally, the enforcement mechanism is
not supervised by the court, as it should be, but by a committee of
limited powers reporting to the Department of Justice. The
enforcement is really so weak as to be almost non-existent,
especially in view of Microsoft's past history of pushing the law
to, and perhaps beyond, its limits. Lastly, if you or I were to have
broken the law, we would expect some punishment. There really is
nothing in the settlement which addresses the issue of redress for
the proven past illegal monopolization.
Greatest Loss is Loss of Choice to the Consumer. Freedom of
choice is important. In its new XP version of Windows, Microsoft has
or will including programs to provide directories and facilitate
internet credit verification. Potentially, if everyone used these
two programs, Microsoft could become the "gatekeeper"
for commercial transactions on the internet, taking a little piece
out of every transaction. A fabulous business to be sure but if this
happens, it will mean that Microsoft has been able to use one
monopoly to create another. With the weak provisions of the proposed
Microsoft antitrust settlement, consumers are almost certain to lose
that choice. Four years from now, there will be another Microsoft
antitrust case. We will have gotten nowhere. We deserve an agreement
which is fair to all parties.
Respectfully submitted
00021642-0002
MTC-00021643
From: Mears, Ed
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:20am
Subject: This is a copy of the letter I submitted to americans for
technology
This is a copy of the letter I submitted to americans for
technology leadership. Since I doubt they will forward it to you, I
am doing so myself.
You probably will not like nor use this message, but I am glad
to express myself. After 20 years of being at the mercy of Microsoft
and watching and being involved in their high-handed tactics for
doing away with the competition-an usually unfairly-I am
disgusted at the hand slap they got. When a company can completely
dominate an industry because they have deep pockets, it goes against
everything we Americans believe in. And who is Microsoft and her
allies kidding-most innovation and competitiveness in American
business comes from small business, not large money-hungry
corporations.
Give me a break! Microsoft as a hero? Come on! They have been
stifling and killing the competition for years. Many of my favorite
programs and/or features of common applications have either
disappeared or become almost non-entities because of Microsoft's
agressive competitive stance and deep pockets. In their place, we
have Microsoft telling us what we want-not usually what we
need.
Score: 0 for free enterprise
1 for monopolies
MTC-00021644
From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27061]]
From: JOHN KOLMAR
To: [email protected]
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.
JOHN KOLMAR
418 W Hackberry dr.
Arlington Hts.
Il. 60004
MTC-00021645
From: Harry Crowell
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This has gone on long enough. Our economy is in turmoil and this
case and others like it do nothing more than add to the turbulence
of uncertainty. The only winners are the attorneys from both sides
that continue to make a mockery of the justice system of the United
States. Please stop the destruction of the reason for people to
become entrepeneurs.
MTC-00021646
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:18am
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,
James LeBlanc
53334 LeBlanc Rd.
Bogalusa, LA 70427
MTC-00021647
From: vnmh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
Subject: Your Honour,
Your Honour,
In accordance with the Tunney Act, I would like to say the
following: Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. Bill Gates and
Microsoft are trying to get away with what Rockefeller and Standard
Oil achieved at the end of the last century in the oil business: a
vertical and horizontal monopoly that controls all aspects of the
industry and inhibits competition which not only hurts the economy
but the public.
In the last twenty years the buzzword in government and the
private sector has been deregulation. Fine. That is why Bell
Telephone was broken up into AT&T and Sprint and MCI were
allowed access to the market. Microsoft makes new operating systems
stillborn by threat, coersion and bullying.
Microsoft has shown nothing but contempt for the consumer and
government since day one of this case. If the solution pushed by the
Ashcroft is set into place, then Microsoft wins and they get to
expand their monopoly. When I took economics in college, everything
I read said this was bad and this is the reason we have antitrust
legislation.
I do not personally begrudge Microsoft a red cent of profit.
They produced a product and people buy it. However, if I must buy
the product because I am forced to purchase Microsoft programs
because other programs which are better will not run on an O/S of my
choice, then is this the market place freedom this country is famous
for?
Please take the open letter by Dan Kegel seriously as well as
Scott Rosenberg's article.
Sincerely,
Marcus Sellers
Homer City, PA
Masters Canidate Biology
Indiana University of Penna
MTC-00021648
From: ALOK JOSHI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir,
I am a user of Microsoft products and developer in Microsoft
technologies.
I would like to say that Microsoft has done the greatest benefit
to the American Industry by consistently bringing out the best
products at most reasonable prices.
Just look at Word, Excel, Outlook, Project and such products.
They beat the competition hands down.
They were never bundled with the computer and were never given
free.
Just because one product-Explorer was given free and was
bundled with the computer-it is no reason to hold Microsoft as
using unfair trade practices. Netscape could have given Netscape
browser free if it wanted to compete? Netscape could have entered
into agreement with computer manufacturers to put its Browser on the
computers. Why did it not? Did it try doing it for even those
computers which were not in agreement with Microsoft?
If the Software industry is where it is today it is in a great
part because of Microsoft. Please give them accolades and awards
instead.
Thanks.
Alok
MTC-00021649
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:19am
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,
Tom Taylor
2465 Southern Oak Road
Ramona, CA 92065
MTC-00021650
From: Jackie Meese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is a very poor choice to accept the current
settlement in the Microsoft case, as nothing has been done to remove
the ability of Microsoft to abuse it monopoly, something that has
been judged to be true. Basically, the current settlement allows
Microsoft to continue to exhibit the behavior that has been found to
be illegal, with merely a slap on the wrist. A solution needs to be
found that will help consumers and other companies more freedom to
do with their computers as they wish, and not what Microsoft has
forced other companies to to do with computers.
MTC-00021651
From: Robert George Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
The fact that a 51 year old doctor with no computer training is
even able to E-mail you is evidence that Microsoft hasn't harmed
consumers. I hear that Linux is preferred by computer cogniscenti,
and is FREE, and yet is not as popular as Microsoft-designed
software.
Drop your drawn-out prosecution (persecution?) of Microsoft, and
aid the INS in deporting the 600,000 potential terrorists with
defective visas.
Sincerely,
Robert Smith MD
MTC-00021652
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27062]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:20am
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,
Dr.William Gibbons
703 Beaumont Drive
Altoona, PA 16602
MTC-00021653
From: Tryggvi Larusson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern.
I'm writing to say that I am deeply worried about the settlement
the US Justice Department made in the antitrust case against
Microsoft. The settlement does virtually nothing, neither to correct
the unfair state of the software market today, nor nothing to punish
Microsoft for their un-competitive and illegal actions in the past
years in the software and PC industries. The question in this case
is on one hand: "What is a monopoly?"-My
definition on a monopoly is: "A situation where people have no
choice other than to deal with one party on a specific matter"
and this is exactly the state in the PC industry regarding Operating
Systems today.
The strangle hold Microsoft holds on the market consists mainly
of API (Application Programming Interface-the tools developers
use to make programs) blocks that prevents other players to enter
the Operating System market and therefore to compete on healthy
grounds with Microsoft on both the OS and general Applications
front.
In my opinion a good way to resurrect the competition on the OS
market could be if the government would some how mandate Microsoft
to open up some parts of its API's (most specifically Win32/MFC). In
this way there could finally be an opportunity for new players to
enter the OS market. Up to this day all attempts to enter this
market have failed and there are numerous examples (OS/2, BeOS and
Linux-which has only gained share in server applications but
not on users desktops). The Macintosh platform stays alive although
it holds only about 4-5% market share of personal computers.
It could be argued that Microsoft keeps the Mac platform barely
alive (by giving away versions of its Internet Explorer and Windows
Media Player and producing its Office suite etc.) to make its case
of monopoly in Operating Systems more controvertible to the
antitrust case.
There are already attempts to "reverse engineer" the
Windows API's and the one that has come furthest is an open-source
project called "Wine" (http://www.winehq.com) but that
project has still a lot to go. The government could make sure the
Windows API's are kept open for some time in cooperation with this
project as this project is open-source and therefore accessible to
everyone, either commercial vendors or individuals. The government
could ensure that Microsoft publishes the API's in question and
makes sure there are open implementations (i.e. Wine) that are
sufficiently compatible to run most Windows applications. Another
way could be to fine Microsoft a considerable amount and use the
money to found a non-profit organization that would provide an open-
source implementation compatible with the Windows API's and make
users run Windows applications (including Microsofts own) on other
platforms than Windows.
In my opinion it is very important that the US government does
something about the situation because if Microsoft's progression
continues as it has it could have even more damaging effects for
users of information technology in the world. The impending risk is
that Microsoft would extend it's monopoly from the OS software (as
it has already done with Office software) to the Internet and could
take control of many commercial services on the Internet and gain
access to personal information on every Windows user (this is part
of the upcoming .Net, Passport and Hailstorm projects from
Microsoft). Users could do little other than participating as almost
all other people would continue to use Windows and therefore .Net.
Regards,
Tryggvi Larusson,
[email protected],
Chief Software Architect,
idega Software
MTC-00021654
From: Jennifer Woelke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
They deliberately cripple other programs.
They cost too much, for the volume that they sell-and you
have to buy the books separately-so if I pay 300.00 for Win
XP, I have to pay them another 30.00-60.00 to get a book to
trouble shoot the system?
This is so wrong.
Don't let them get away with everything.
I have no faith in government, and this post is a waste of my
time, but I was urged to DO something, so here it is.
Jennifer A Woelke
MTC-00021655
From: Scott Bolden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TUNNEY ACT COMMENT ATTACHED I have attached my comments on the
Microsoft Settlement to this email. For your convenience, I have
attached the same file in two different formats. The first format is
.rtf, which is readable in most word processors. The second format
is plain ASCII, .txt, which should be readable in all word
processors.
Thanks,
Scott Bolden
TUNNEY ACT COMMENT ATTACHED
MTC-00021655-0001
January 23, 2002
From: Scott Bolden
3902 5th Street N Apt. 3
Arlington, Virginia 22203
To: Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Re: Tunney Act Comments for the Microsoft Settlement Agreement
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Civil Action No.
98-1232 (CKK)
My name is Scott Bolden and I am writing in my own capacity as a
user of Microsoft Corporation's ("Microsoft") Operating
System ("OS") products, as a consumer, and as a citizen.
I believe the Revised Proposed Final Judgment in United States v.
Microsoft Corp. ("the agreement") should be rejected
because it is fundamentally flawed and usurps the remedies it was
intended to provide. First, the agreement contains several vague
provisions that are open to interpretation and will likely be
exploited by Microsoft. Particularly troubling is the fact that the
provisions are so broad that they allow Microsoft to define and
control the terms of the agreement. Second, Microsoft has a proven
history of violating the antitrust laws and a prior agreement with
the Justice Department. Finally, the agreement takes few steps to
restore competition and may significantly hinder true competition in
the operating system market. The proposed agreement does not punish
Microsoft, does not restore competition, and harms consumers.
Accordingly, I urge the court to reject the agreement in its
entirety.
I. The Agreement is Vague and Gives Too Much Power to Microsoft
The agreement is lacking in several critical aspects. Although a
thorough analysis of this agreement is beyond the scope of this
comment, I have highlighted a few areas of general and one area of
specific concern.
The first area of general concern is the agreement's provisions
that include the clause: "...for the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product...."
This clause is extraordinarily restrictive, especially considering
that Microsoft has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act in the OS-
market for x86-architecture computers. In essence, Microsoft will be
"forced" to divulge key information (such as APIs) to
the designers of application programs that use Microsoft's OSes.
Microsoft already provides much of this information to application
designers in an effort to encourage the creation of a wide variety
of applications for its OSes. The restrictive clause merely
sanctions conduct beneficial to and already performed by Microsoft,
and does not aid competitors and
[[Page 27063]]
consumers. Therefore, this clause should be removed.
Another troubling clause that is often employed is:
"...specified in the Windows documentation...particular types
of functionality .... "See III.C.1; III.H.1. As opposed to the
previously discussed clause, this open-ended clause is virtually
meaningless. Allowing Microsoft to restrict the agreement's remedies
based on its own documentation gives Microsoft the power to control
the terms of the agreement.
Although I do not disagree with the general provisions regarding
the Technical Committee, see IV, I do disagree with the provisions
that eschew public disclosure in favor of nondisclosure. The
agreement is drafted to avoid all public disclosure throughout each
stage of enforcement. This is an unconscionable result, and
effectively allows a company who acted against the public interest
to shield any future misconduct from the public. At the very least,
the reports of the Technical Committee should be available to the
public for review.
The time periods listed in the agreement are a final area of
general concern. The five-year length of the agreement is wholly
inadequate to remedy Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. See V.A.
In addition, the "one-time extension of [the agreement] of up
to two years" is laughable. V.B. Microsoft does not even have
to release any APIs before 12 months from the entry of this
agreement, see III.C. 1, so this agreement is effectively a four-
year agreement. The effective length of the agreement is curtailed
further by the generous (and undefined) provision that gives
Microsoft a "reasonable opportunity" to fix any
violations of the agreement, before submitting to a lengthy closed
arbitration process for continued violations. IV.A.4. A more
appropriate remedy would be to enlarge the length of this agreement
to seven years, and remove the limitation on the number of
extensions available in the future "when the Court [finds]
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic
violations." V.B.
The area of specific concern is section III.J.2 of the
agreement. This section allows Microsoft to condition the release of
information to a licensee that, inter alia: (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... Id. (emphasis added)
Again, this section allows Microsoft to control the terms of the
agreement. By allowing Microsoft to define the phrases
"reasonable business need" and "meets reasonable,
objective standards," this agreement forecloses competition in
the OS market by denying information to Microsoft's only potential
competitor: the open-software community.
II. Microsoft Has a History of Anticompetitive Behavior
Microsoft has an anticompetitive history, and its past conduct
evidences a disregard for the law. The Government first filed suit
against Microsoft for antitrust violations in 1994, obtained a
consent decree against the company in 1995, and filed suit against
Microsoft for violations of the consent decree in 1998. Microsoft's
misconduct during the trial court phase is legendary (but was
overshadowed by the conduct of Judge Jackson). In addition,
representatives of the company have often demonstrated an attitude
that borders on contempt for the law and the judicial system. This
past conduct is not cause alone for punishing Microsoft, but it
compels caution and strict oversight in enforcing antitrust
remedies.
III. The Agreement Harms Competition
Finally, and most importantly, the flaws of the agreement and
Microsoft's actions in and out of court mandate the view that this
agreement will harm competition. Many of the agreement's provisions
give Microsoft too much control, permitting the company to avoid
disclosure, act anticompetitively, and harm competitors and
consumers. The Court of Appeals warned against this result when it
stated: "[I]t would be inimical to the purpose of the Sherman
Act to allow monopolists free reign to squash nascent, albeit
unproven, competitors at will particularly in industries marked by
rapid technological advance and frequent paradigm shifts."
Unfortunately, the proposed agreement permits Microsoft, a proven
monopolist, to continue its anticompetitive behavior against third-
party OSes and middleware. Accordingly, I urge the Court to reject
this agreement in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Scott Bolden
MTC-00021656
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:20am
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,
Lan Nowotny
2639 Westwood Dr. NW
cedar rapids, IA 52405-2142
MTC-00021657
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
Subject: Fwd: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Dear Mr.Ashcroft,
Please get on with this suit and let it be settled now.I feel
that it is in the best interest to focus on other matters,that are
more important than this issue,like the ENRON PROBLEM,which has
effected all middleclass workers,who were going to retire on that
now are worthless and bankrupt now.I feel that Microsoft has done
everything to work with the Justice Department and the US
Government.
Sincerely,
Janice Schiavo
MTC-00021658
From: Gary Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
In the anti-trust settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft I
feel the responsibility to be heard.
I am not a supporter of the proposed settlement. I have been in
the IT / Computing, and particularly Computer Software industries
for all my professional life, some 30 years, and I'm appalled with
what Microsoft has done to our industry and is allowed to continue
to do. They have hurt our economy immensely by being allowed to
indiscriminately and unfetteredly enforce their predatory and
monopolistic practises. They have inflicted grave damage to the
American Industry and citizens.
Innovation has been crushed-the innovators can never make
any money from their contributions. Because of the monopoly
Microsoft holds no other product has a chance in the marketplace and
all those working in the competing industry dissappear as a tax base
for the American government.
Microsoft continues to give away software until they gain a
monopolistic beach-head and then gouge for their software. Their
practices have destroyed superior products, or so severely
eliminated their revenue streams so that they can no longer afford
to maintain a competitive product in the marketplace. Netscape,
Lotus, RealAudio, WordPerfect and others are prime examples of
fantastic products that Microsoft alone destroyed by being allowed
to freely enforce monopolositic practises.
Microsoft should be held accountable. But more importantly, they
should be stopped from continuing their practises. They continue to
display a total disregard for the laws of our great nation and any
code of ethics. They have stolen or bought most of their products
and actually innovated nothing unless its the method of getting away
scott-free with anti-trust activities.
The Open Source movement is the last bastion aginst Microsoft.
The world over programmers are working *FOR FREE* because a) there's
no chance of selling a product that doesn't come from Microsoft and
b) because that's the only way to get a product that is any good in
many areas. Microsoft has a stranglehold on computing in general,
and software development in particular because noone can ever get a
return from their software development investment in this
environment.
[[Page 27064]]
Please don't let this thievery and suppression of proud American
engineers, users and industry continue unrestrained.
Thank you,
Gary Heller.
The box said "Requires Windows NT 4.0 or better", so
I installed LINUX
Gary Heller
407-667-3793
[email protected]
MTC-00021659
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ
I have to say that the resolution you proposed is far from
adequate. It seems you missed the Appeals Court finding. Microsoft
is still doing harm to competitors and needs to be controlled.
Please re-examine your proposed settlement. It is insufficient and
we will all be back at this again if you don't lasso Microsoft while
you have the court findings to back up a much stronger settlement.
Every day, I find the Microsoft OS to be inadequate and yet only
Linux at this time has any hope of competing with Microsoft. And
that is because its free. Any bonafide competitor has no chance
against a monopoly that keeps its monopoly by anti-competitve
behavior.
cheers,
Willy Clarkson
email: [email protected]
MTC-00021660
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22am
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,
Peggy Griffin
6725 W. Canal Pointe Lane
Fort Wayne, IN 46804-4771
MTC-00021661
From: Leonardo Alcantara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It would be a shame for justice worldwide. For god sake, DO
something to punish MS now!
Leonardo Alcantara
MTC-00021662
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:21am
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,
Donna Klessig
HC2 Box 95
Gainesville, MO 65655-9209
MTC-00021663
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
In my opinion, the settlement between Microsoft and DOJ is fair
and should be concluded immediately. Any extention of this
settlement only serves to waste Government monies, and does not
serve the best interest of either taxpayers or users of Microsoft
products.
Sincerely,
Lawrence J. Watson
109 Melrose Court
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
[email protected]
MTC-00021664
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter presents my response to the revised proposed Final
Judgement to resolve the United States" civil antitrust case
against Microsoft, which is currently up for public review. I am a
citizen of the United States, and a resident of rome, ny.
I. Critique of Proposed Final Judgement
The proposed Final Judgement that the US and Microsoft agreed to
on November 6th appears to have the best intentions, and addresses
many of the major issues raised by the case. Unfortunately, I feel
that it falls short of being an effective remedy.
I agree with many of the points in the following critique of the
proposed final judgement, and it is more complete than my own
statement will be.
Please review the statement on the antitrustinstitute.org
website at:
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/149.cfm
There is much to consider in that document, the points in the
proposed final remedy that I consider most important to review are
that:
1) it makes no attempt to address "ill-gotten gains"
garnered by microsoft through its anticompetitive practices. This is
a serious shortcoming because the company's illegal tactics have
placed it in a very advantageous position in the industry. In order
to make anticompetitive behavior unprofitable, there must be
substantive punishment that reduces those gains.
2) the anti-retaliatory clause is insufficient. Section 3.A.1
specifies that Microsoft shall not retaliate against and OEM for
"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;".
Section 6.L defines Microsoft Platform Software as "(i) a
Windows Operating System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware
Product."
As I read this clause, it still allows retaliation against OEM's
for developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or
licensing, software that competes with other Non-Platform Microsoft
Products, such as Office, .Net, and other applications. This opens
an important window for Microsoft to continue its anticompetitive
practices.
3) the api disclosure provision in section 3.D is impossible to
enforce.
The only way to ensure that microsoft isn't hiding undocumented
API's is to audit the source code. No body with sufficient manpower
has been appointed to do this. A more appropriate solution would be
to require disclosure to API's AND source to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs,
and OEMs. They could then audit suspect code themselves, and present
an informed complaint to the Technical Committee, which could verify
and investigate.
4) The only punitive measure specified to discourage Microsoft
from non-compliance is a 2 year extension of the terms of the
judgement. If Microsoft is not complying with the judgement anyway,
this is an extraordinarily ineffective punishment.
II. Support for Plaintiff Litigating States' Remedial Proposals
(December 7, 2001)
The proposal filed by the state on December 7th, 2001 is a much
more complete remedy. The proposal is available on the web at:
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remedy_f
iling.pdf
1) It addresses the Microsoft's ill-gotten gains in section H by
Open Sourcing the code to Internet Explorer. The Court's Findings of
Fact, issued on 11/5/99, state that Microsoft successfully used its
monopoly power to increase the market share of Internet Explorer.
These findings of fact can be found on the US Department of Justice
webpage at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#
vh By Open Sourcing the code to Internet Explorer, Microsoft is
deprived of the gains associated with their anti-competitive
behavior.
[[Page 27065]]
Additionally, consumers and the entire computing industry
benefit by augmenting the publically available software
infrastructure of the internet.
2) Section E offers a stronger anti-retaliatory clause which
covers all microsoft products, and not just Platform Products.
3) Section C offers an API Disclosure provision that is
enforceable. ISV's, OEM's, etc are provided access to source as well
as API documentation.
This will allow them to inspect suspicious code and present well
informed complaints to the Technical Committee.
4) Section O offers excellent punitive measures in the event
that Microsoft does not comply with the Judgement. Additionally,
section L of this document provides excellent protection against
Microsoft co-opting and breaking standards compatibility, as the
findings of fact show it did with the JAVA standard. This topic is
not addressed in the Proposed Final Judgement.
III. General suggestions
Unbundling microsoft middleware/products/services is a superior
solution than requiring alternatives be bundled as well. The latter
has the effect of favoring a small number of well established
middleware/products/services by creating large barriers of entry to
new middleware/products/services that are not included in the OS
distribution.
Mandating that Microsoft offer licenses to third-party companies
to port its applications to alternative Operating Systems is a
superior solution than requiring that Microsoft maintain ports of
particular products to particular OS's. Determining whether a port
of a given application to a given platform can be profitable is
difficult and should be decided by the market. Microsoft should not
be allowed to lock-out existing markets by not porting applications
and not allowing others to do so. However, is it not feasible to
expect Microsoft to port every application to every platform. There
is not always a demand.
There should be a reward in the event that microsoft makes every
effort in good faith to comply with the judgement. Perhaps make the
judgement applicable for 10 years, with an option to terminate the
measures in 5 if microsoft makes efforts in good faith to comply.
IV. Relevant Links
1) The Proposed Final Judgement (11/6/2001)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
2) The commentary on the Proposed Final Judgement at
antitrustinstitute.org
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/149.cfm
3) Plaintiff Litigating States" Remedial Proposals (12/7/
2001)
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remedy_f
iling.pdf
V. Closing
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope an appropriate
set of remedial measures can be decided upon soon.
Scott Boltz
MTC-00021665
From: Wayne Dernoncourt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24am
Subject: the proposed settlement isn't just
I don't feel adequate to express myself, but I will try. There
are smarter people that I, hopefully they are also writing on this
issue.
Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally using a
monopolistic position to further it's market in other areas. They
have done the same thing in the past, if allowed they will do the
same thing in the future.
The settlement only seems to allow for profit companies to seek
a license (going from memory here) to use protocols that MS has
modified. Protocols that were originally developed as public
protocols thus making the internet possible. MS has made slight
modifications to the protocol and called the result proprietary
extensions. Legal, yes, just, no.
Specifically, the SMB protocol that MS uses for file
transfers(?). This has been reverse engineered to allow non-
Microsoft systems to inter-operate with Microsoft based systems. The
reverse engineering was done as non-profit by individuals with a
need to inter-operate with Microsoft systems. My reading of the
proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to declare the use of such
free tools to be illegal. As a consumer, I need to be able to work
among different systems, but since I don't operate a company that
markets such a product, I would be prohibited from using free
software that does. Also, Microsoft would have the ability to
prohibit companies to essentially stop marketing a product by
denying them the ability to use Application Program Interfaces
(API's). Again, would it be legal? Yes, would it be just? No.
Take care
Wayne D.
MTC-00021666
From: Joshua D. Sholes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed
Microsoftanti-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 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,
Joshua D. Sholes
MTC-00021667
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22am
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,
Dawn Hill
6246 Guadalupe Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89108-3353
MTC-00021668
From: Blair Jennings
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement should be closed this has gone on long
enough Netscape is a poor product which would have died in the
market anyway. (I am a Software Engineer who specializes in Internet
applications). My biggest problem is the support I have to give to a
product which is buggy, unstable and highly behind the times i.e..
Netscape Navigator. The company which needs to be talked to about
Netscape is AOL and its handling of the browser after the
acquisition of Netscape. Please settle this lawsuit so that the
world can get onto more important things. Like finding Osama bin
Lauden.
Blair Jennings
Software Engineer
Lion bioscience, Inc.
(858)410-6582
[email protected]
<>
MTC-00021669
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22am
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,
Cynthia Dungan
[[Page 27066]]
3803 Chablis Cv
Memphis, TN 38115
MTC-00021670
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The need to consider the state of the US economy must be an
important consideration in any decision regarding govt vs business
litigation. This lawsuit against Microsoft creates great uncertainty
-made worse by others-tobacco, asbestos, the 9-11
deaths, Enron, Etc. There is a growing, and general feeling that no
firm's financial situation can be counted upon or understood in what
to most of us non-lawyers or non-regulators appears to be an out-of-
control litigation feast. I suggest that a high priority be to
settle this matter as quickly as possible on mutually acceptable
terms rather than continuing litigation.
James F. Van Houten
President
Mutual Service Cooperative, MSI Insurance Cos
Tele: 651-631-7004
MTC-00021671
From: jim jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello;
I would just like to say that microsoft should be made to
include java in its operating system as this is a direct attempt to
squash all competing systems.
MTC-00021672
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I reject the Microsoft Settlement. I don't believe I said that
in my previous e-mail. :)
"Love is not Turing Computable"
Jason C. Miller
http://members.home.com/jason.c.miller
Raytheon Imagery and Geospacial Systems (IGS)
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
[email protected] [home]
[email protected] [work]
MTC-00021673
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
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,
Ward Hartzell
87 Mountain Vista Lane
Twisp, WA 98856
MTC-00021674
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23am
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,
Eric Lewerenz
pob 1270
ocala, FL 34478
MTC-00021675
From: Al Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:26am
Subject: microsoft settlement
In my humble opinion the witch hunt of Microsoft has gone on far
too long. Let the marketplace take care of them. The rapid move to
Linux shows that MS does not in fact hinder other companies efforts.
We have one PC using Windows and another using Mandrake Linux. Linux
is somewhat harder to grasp than Windows. Let's allow the free
market to work. Many people are using Windows because Linux is
harder to install and use.
Sincerely,
Alvin C. Smith
Easley S.C.
MTC-00021676
From: Audrey Swearengen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
Subject: Welfare for Netscape?
Dear Sir:
Why your company should be penalized for being successful is a
distortion of our American dream. You have done nothing wrong except
failing to give huge sums of money to the Democratic Party, as
Netscape and other of their ilk did.
This entire matter should be halted now, and abject apologies
paid to all the Microsoft crew who have had to endure this insult to
their abilities to make a better "mousetrap".
Audrey Swearengen
MTC-00021677
From: Christian Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am appalled that our Justice department has seen fit to cower
to the interests of a "fat cat" like Bill Gates.
Microsoft has clearly demonstrated in the past its desire to snuff
out competition. Numerous leaked internal memos diagram perfectly
the insideous nature of the Microsoft war machine and its
unparalleled desire to crush opposition. Hopefully this settlement
will die and we can re-examine all the facts of the case. The
Federal governement should take a hint from the state-level civil
lawsuits currently being waged.
Christian Russell
MTC-00021678
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24am
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,
DONALD VASTLIK
16 CR 173
CORINTH, MS 38834-1373
MTC-00021679
From: Curtis Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am disappointed by the Department of Justice's cave-in on the
ruling of Microsoft's Anti-trust case. Once again, the goverment
panders to big business at the expense of the ordinary citizen and a
free-market economy. A product should fail or succede on the overall
value not by the marketing and strongarm tactics of the company
pushing the product.
Microsoft's paractices as taught to me by our school system are
in the same vein of anti-competiton and monopoly as the Vanderbilts
and the IBM of old. Once again the case of do as we say and not as
we do
[[Page 27067]]
is enforced by the system. The case of money makes right is spoken
to the new generations of American children by your ruling. Thank
you for making me disbeleive the American Justice even more than
before.
Curtis Bowman
MTC-00021680
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24am
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,
Toby Cundell
1162 NE Ulysses
Bend, OR 97701
MTC-00021681
From: Richard C. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I DO NOT AGREE here again, Microsoft get's off with changes in
definitions of already known words and concepts and all changes are
in their favor This company needs to be stopped
eComStation V1, Netscape 4.61
Yahoo Messenger
richard_iesco_dms
MTC-00021682
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:27am
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,
Shelly Scheibert
11361 Royal Ct.
Carmel, IN 46032
MTC-00021683
From: Luke deGruchy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my complete disaproval of and total
disillusionment with the Microsoft/United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) Settlement. Furthermore, I implore you to recommend
that this settlement be soundly overturned.
In my opinion, this settlement does not address the most
flagrant aspects of Microsoft's previous anti-competitve behaviour.
Furthermore, it does little, if anything, to prevent future
antitrust violations. I cannot determine if the DOJ agreed to this
settlement due to collusion with Microsoft or sheer incompetence.
However, there are a number of blatant oversights in this
settlement. The most glaring of these oversights is the
specification of Microsoft's competitors as being exclusively for-
profit enterprises. This definition completely ignores Microsoft's
single biggest competitor and threat: the OpenSource and Free
Software communities. These two communities, respectively, are
completely non-profit entities and comprise of volunteer programmers
writing code in their spare time. They have produced, among many
other excellent free and Open Source software, the Linux and FreeBSD
operating systems, which their users are free to distribute, modify
and copy to whatever extent they choose, in stark contrast with
Microsoft's closed source and expensive operating system: Windows.
Microsoft will not be required to adjust its behaviour with respect
to these communities in this settlement. Therefore, consumers"
greatest hope of seeing competition, and thus lower prices and
better software, in the software and operating systems markets is
not being helped in any way, shape or form by this settlement.
Microsoft was found guilty of illegally integrating its Internet
Explorer browser with its Windows operating system in a vain and
ultimately successful attempt to defeat the rival Netscape
Communicator browser. This settlement does next to nothing to punish
this anti-competitive behaviour, nor does it seek to prevent similar
behaviour in the future or to restore competition in the browser
market. Consumers will suffer greatly because of this.
Microsoft is guilty of entering into exclusive arrangements with
computer original equipment manufacturers (OEM's), the sellers of
personal comuputer (PC) systems, to not only distribute Windows to
the exclusion of all other operating systems, but to FORCE computer
consumers to buy Windows with each new system. There is no option
for consumers to buy a "naked" PC, that is, a PC without
an operating system installed, unless they do business with one of
the smaller, independent, less known computer retailers. This
agreement has the same effect as a mandatory tax on PC consumers,
because if a user wanted to install another operating system, such
as Linux, that consumer would have to pay for the Windows license in
addition to the cost of the alternative operating system, whether or
not that user chose to use it.
Furthermore, upon the purchase of the system, the user is not
allowed to sell his or her copy of Windows if he or she chooses not
to install it. There is very little in this settlement that
addresses this inequitable, semi-regulatory system by a non-
governmental entity. Microsoft has illegally leveraged its operating
system monopoly to force competitors out of business, many of whom
were making better products than Microsoft. For example, when
Microsoft introduced its Office productivity suite, it charged a
mere $40 for the entire package, using the profits from its Windows
and DOS monopolies to cross-subsidize the scheme, an option not
available to its competitors. Its competitors had no other sources
of revenue but from their primary products (productivity
applications), so Microsoft had an unfair advantage in leveraging
its Windows monopoly to put its competitors out of business.
This is exactly the kind of behaviour that antitrust laws are
designed to prevent.
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was found to have prujured himself
on the stand, denying the existance of an email that the DOJ had
later reproduced in court. Why has he not been personally punished
for this crime?
Where are the provisions preventing Microsoft from future
behaviours not covered by the settlement, such as Microsoft's
exclusion of Java software in its latest operating system, Windows
XP? This is despite the fact that a large percentage of web sites
run Java applets on their sites. Nothing in this settlement will
prevent Microsoft from continuing this practice, which clearly goes
against consumers" wishes. In conclusion, I urge you strongly
to push for a complete rejection of this highly flawed and totally
ineffective settlement. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Luke deGruchy
Java Developer
Distributel
740, Notre-Dame Ouest, Suite 1135
Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H3C 3X6
tel: (514) 877-0054
fax: (514) 877-5549
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00021684
From: Stewart Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't think the proposed settlement has enough teeth to do any
good. Microsoft has a clear history of circumventing, undermining
and lying. It needs to face a significant penalty and damages if
more law-abiding companies are to be able to have a fair chance of
competing against them. The
[[Page 27068]]
cost of Microsoft abuses to other Americans who are law-abiding is
very high. The proposed settlement is a cave-in by the DOJ which
smacks of political or other interference.
MTC-00021685
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24am
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,
Linda Batdorf
1940 Rainbow Dr
Clearwater, FL 33765
MTC-00021686
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
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,
James R. Kendig
560 S. Fairmount Rd
Ephrata, PA 17522-8533
MTC-00021687
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25am
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,
Paul Ochsner
1015 Raffon Court S.E.
Salem, OR 97301
MTC-00021688
From: Rev. Randell E. Tonn
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those concerned:
In total departure from the rabid comments being furthered by
the "conservative" Sixty Second Activist, I write to
ENCOURAGE the Department of Justice to aggressively pursue its legal
actions against the predatory, monopolistic corporation known as
Microsoft which has repeatedly and consistently used its
monopolistic situation to produce upgrades which often function less
productively and efficiently than their predecessors while charging
unconscionably, ridiculously and ludicrously high prices for this
"bloatware" while computer hardware manufacturers find
it necessary to produce ever faster and larger equipment (without
significant improvement in through-put)
It is high time that the full faith and authority of the federal
government and the state governments (in which the predatory and
monopolistic Microsoft does business) be brought to bear upon the
best interests of the consumer.
The strident voice of the Sixty Second Activist to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Microsoft suit is not a waste of
taxpayers" tax dollars, it is a fundamental purpose for which
government exists-the protection of its citizens from those
who would use monopolistic and quasi terroristic threats (ala the
most recent release of the XP Windows) in which a corporation seeks
to infiltrate and exercise its control over the citizen's computer.
It is my fervent plea, prayer and hope that the Department of
Justice will find the moral courage to pursue the high ground of
idealism by repudiating the strident Sixty Second Activist and
actively pursuing the break-up of Microsoft in the interest of
pursuing its primary function, i.e., the protection of its citizens.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rev. Randell E. Tonn
Zapata, Texas
956.765.6197
[email protected]
MTC-00021689
From: Blatchley, Brett
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I did not realize until this morning that I could submit
comments related to the Microsoft Settlement, but I've been fuming
about this case since it began.
As a 20+ year computer professional, I've been in this business
as long as Bill Gates, and I am ever amazed at the degree of
audacity, arrogance, and underhanded behavior displayed by
Microsoft.
Microsoft is a convicted abuser of the American version of the
Free Enterprise System. Moreover, and more to my point: they have
not repented- if anything, they continue the very behavior
that there conviction is supposed to put an end to. For example,
they are up to their old ways with their .Net initiative, their
Windows [instant] Messenger, and they are trying to crush Palm inc.
in a manner similar to Netscape. They continue to bully their
customers with questionable end-user-license-agreements (ELUAs), and
now they are infringing in individuals free-use rights with their XP
product-activation policies.
Letting Microsoft off the hook will only encourage more of this
kind of behavior. And for Microsoft, delay is victory because once
they take-over an area there is no undoing the damage; they will
readily pay a fine later if it means capturing a market now.
Generally I'm for less government in the affairs of people, but
Microsoft as a major problem and they need to be punished
appropriately (read: harshly).
Thanks for your time, consideration, and opportunity to speak-
out.
Brett Blatchley, MCSD
Technical Architect
Stratapult
2650 Pilgrim Court
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Ph (336) 631-2825
[email protected]
www.stratapult.com
MTC-00021690
From: Mark Nahabedian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing concerning the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust case.
I have been working professionally as a software developer since
1983 and, I feel, am well qualified to distinguish between operating
system and application software capabilities. At no time during my
working career have I been employed by any of the numerous companies
which have fallen victim to Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
I have no reasons to bear Microsoft any enmity other than for the
consistent substandard quality of their products or their heavy-
handed anti-free-market business
[[Page 27069]]
practices. Such practices harm us all, not just those in direct
competition with Microsoft.
In 1994 Microsoft resolved earlier antitrust allegations by
signing a consent decree. It's clear from the court's findings in
the antitrust case which Microsoft is now battling that they have
not moderated their monopolistic behavior since 1994. It is also
clear from the manner of their recent entry into the online
messaging market that the current case has also not encouraged them
to alter their behavior. The only possible remedy that will prevent
such egregious behavior in the future is to break up the company,
thus denying them the means to engage in future monopolistic
practices.
Microsoft should be divided into three separate companies, one
for the operating system, one for applications, and one for network
services. I'll refer to these entities as OS (Operating Systems), AS
(Applications Software) and NS (Network Services) respectively.
These companies must operate according to the following rules: No
person can serve in a management position or as a director of more
than one such entity at a time. No technical consultant shall be
employed by more than one company at a time.
There can be no communication among these entities concerning
technical issues surrounding their products unless such
communication is made publicly and is available to all companies
involved with similar development efforts. For example:
OS can not add any functionality that is already available from
another software vendor except by broad industry consensus. If such
functionality is already provided by another vendor to run under an
OS provided operating system, such functionality should be
considered to be application software. Applications software mat be
developed by AS but not OS.
If AS requires a new feature from OS, it must request it
publicly. When OS alters or extends the behavior of the operating
system, it must document the changes publicly.
Any protocol which OS or AS software employs to communicate with
NS services must be publicly documented at least six months prior to
the public distribution of such software by OS or AS.
In addition to the above outlined breakup, Microsoft should pay
all fines which have accrued as a result of violation of the
previous consent decree.
If the Justice Department lets Microsoft off the hook with
anything short of these terms, it is violating its public trust. Any
DoJ associates responsible for such compromise are not fit to serve
in a government agency.
Do the right thing.
Mark Nahabedian
66 Prospect Street
Cambridge MA 02139-2503
MTC-00021691
From: optimal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I am a web developer and a share holder in both Microsoft and
AOL Time Warner and I believe that "Tunney Act" is
*just, fair* and *in the public interest* and should be implemented
to bring an end to this soap opera. The latest AOL action is both
disturbing and frivolous. As an experienced long-time developer for
both browsers, I can attest that IE won its market share on its
merits.
Thank you.
Mike Sarieh.
MTC-00021692
From: Bob Deneen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement and AOL law suit
It seems to me that we have more important things to solve in
this country than frivolous corporate badgering.
What laws did Microsoft violate? Fine them or quit this charade.
AOL-Time Warner is a greater threat! They are creating confusion
with a frivolous court case that gives "the law" its bad
reputation for using legal gymnastics to solve marketplace failures.
AOL has no justified claim! I have used the Internet daily for
ten years. I looked at Netscape-in no way was I deprived from
accessing it. I didn't like it and therefore I don't use it. There
is no other reason than that for any non-user.
Is this a free market or not? If consumers decide not to use a
product must our tax dollars be used to force us to use it? All of
this lawsuits will RAISE PRICES TO CONSUMERS-which AOL is
already is doing!
Robert N. Deneen
[email protected]
MTC-00021693
From: Huber, Blake
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I belive the proposed settlement is a bad idea because it is too
lenient on Microsoft. I do not believe that this action will prevent
further monopoly abuses by Microsoft in the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Blake Huber
Blake Huber
Coremetrics
Engineering Operations
Ph: 512.342.2623 x2250
Cel: 512.297.8725
Fax: 512. 346.1395
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00021694
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
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,
Alan Park
2193 Ridgepointe Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
MTC-00021695
From: Julian Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to suggest a remedy for the case against Microsoft.
Neither the current proposal ( a lame slap on the wrist) nor huge
monetary fines nor Judge Jackson's breakup scheme will actually
benefit the consumer. They are all negative proposals that will hurt
Microsoft's stock price but accomplish little else.
Instead I propose that Microsoft be required to provide complete
documentation, as well as free technical support 24 hours a day, 365
days a year for all of their products for any licensed customer.
This will cost Microsoft a great deal but the consumer would be
the direct beneficiary. Microsoft, for its part, could only reduce
its burden by improving the software and the documentation, or by
getting out of a particular area of software
development-making room for competition.. Again, the consumer
would benefit.
It has been suggested to me that this proposal would hand
Microsoft a monopoly in the "help desk" business. That
might be true but the requirements of this proposal would be so huge
that Microsoft would have to outsource the work to every "help
desk" company it could find.
Thank you for taking this under consideration
Julian Shapiro
CC:sarah72
MTC-00021696
From: Walter Metcalf
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir:
I don't agree!
I think the proposed USDOJ "settlement" is little
more than a capitulation to Microsoft. During the original trial,
there were hundreds and hundreds of pages of original testimony
proving beyond doubt that Microsoft has strong-armed
companies-even companies as large as IBM-into doing its
will. The proposed DOJ agreement almost completely ignores this
mountain of evidence! Microsoft also made a deliberate attempt to
raising the entry barrier into the operating system industry to
achieve a monopolistic position.
Walter F. Metcalf
[[Page 27070]]
MTC-00021697
From: John B. Proffitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
Thanks for undertaking a legal battle against Microsoft on
behalf of the American nation. You fought a good fight, but it looks
as though Microsoft will emerge essentially unscathed. Microsoft may
have lost the judgement, but no effectively punitive measures are
forthcoming as a result of the antitrust action. Considering the
cost of the case to the taxpayer, one might fairly characterize the
outcome as a Pyrrhic victory.
Note that I am in no way personally opposed to Microsoft
Corporation. I use their software products daily at home and at
work. Through long habituation I have come to prefer the Wintel
computing environment over available competition. Yet I believe it
may be time to bring Microsoft to heel.
There are negative aspects of Microsoft's business practices
that you chose not to address in your brief. But more than this,
there is the general condition that corporations wield too much
power in this country. They abuse their customers, bamboozle their
investors and thumb their nose at governments. When called to
account for their actions they simply hire more lawyers and disburse
more campaign contributions. Justice, apparently, is for sale in the
United States. If we are to reverse this trend, there is no better
place to start than with Microsoft.
Our leaders must be able to see through an incessant deluge of
advertising. They must be capable of resisting the lure of short-
term capital gains. If we, the people, cannot regain control of the
tiller of the ship of state, if we cannot assert our will to govern
with fairness and wisdom, then it will be time for a second American
Revolution. The first one will have failed.
John B. Proffitt
MTC-00021698
From: Michael Pierce
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Pierce
3806 Juliana's Way
Round Rock, Tx 78664
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Pierce
MTC-00021699
From: Jill McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to ask you to please approve the settlement so that
our country can get on with other business.
Jill McKenzie
San Diego, CA
MTC-00021700
From: Joshua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I must make my thoughts known regarding the proposed Microsoft
settlement. It is simple, Microsoft illegally kept the makers of
personal computers from controlling their own choice of computer
operating systems. This behavior was and continues to be predatory
and anti-competitive. American's belief in opportunity, competition,
and fair play have routinely been trampled by the self sustaining
tactics of this industry giant.
Therefore, any settlement or resolution should insure that
Microsoft cannot continue its anti-American behavior. I believe that
the current settlement does not meet this criteria and implore you
to consider more appropriate measures to this end.
Sincerely,
Joshua Pennington
Fresno, CA
MTC-00021701
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement you people in the government have come up
with is a joke. Anyone, even an average computer user , can see that
this will in no way deter Microsoft from continuing their monopolist
practices. If you do not crack down on them now, they will feel free
to continue to produce buggy, insecure bloatware at will without
fear of competition. I personally agree with the holdout states that
Microsoft should make a version of windows that does not contain a
browser, media player or word processor and leave those choices up
to the individual consumer. Many of us are smart enough to get
around Microsoft's pigeonholing us on applications but it is not
always easy. By them consistently adding more and more
"functionality" to their operating system, it is
allowing them to little by little squeeze out other utility
companies.
The new XP version comes with a built in browser, media player,
scanner and digital camera, and printer drivers that are normally
supplied by other companies. This is allowing MS to leverage these
other companies out because they are creating the operating system
these drivers are installed into. I for one think it is high time
the government stepped in and really did something for the PEOPLE
that it is supposed to represent instead of big business.
Thank You for your time
Carl Relford
Sears Computer Technician
Tucson, Arizona
MTC-00021702
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
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,
Joe Bates
4041 S Dells
Harvey, LA 70058-2107
MTC-00021704
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
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.
[[Page 27071]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edwin Sullivant
PO Box 1576 La Pine, OR 97739-1576
MTC-00021705
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
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,
John Cone
P.O. Box #421
Denton, TX 76202
MTC-00021706
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
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,
Robert Kelley
2817 Kelling Street
Davenport, IA 52804-1551
MTC-00021707
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
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,
Robert Kelley
2817 Kelling Street
Davenport, IA 52804-1551
MTC-00021708
From: Bill Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I'd like to express my outrage at the offer laid upon the table
by Microsoft. Once again a Microsoft is playing a shell game.
"Now you see us, now we own you."
The idea that a corporation could design its own punishment is
laughable. Especially considering this so called punishment actually
will benefit Microsoft. If this is really going to be a punitive
decision, Microsoft should put up the money for purchases and buy
equipment and software that they have no financial relationship
with. Now that would actually be punishment.
With the settlement previously reached by the DOJ regarding
Microsoft's monopoly and anti-competitive tactics, I would, however,
believe that true justice will not be achieved and Microsoft will,
yet again, benefit from their so called punishment.
Sincerely,
William T. Randall, Jr.
MTC-00021709
From: Bill Bamert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May concern,
I am opposed to the current settlement that is being pursued in
the Microsoft Antitrust Case. Another concern I have is the sudden
change in my governments stance on this case. Why is Microsoft now
being let off with less then a slap on the wrist?
The current settlement is not sufficient to compensate for what
has been done or to keep it from happening again. I am a Networking
Specialist and I work with a multiple operating systems including
those offered by Microsoft. I have been in the field for over 15
years now and have watched and am watching a number of good software
products get obliterated by Microsoft. I have also watched as the
price tag on Microsoft products goes up and up. If something is not
done to correct Microsoft's business practices, there soon will be
only one vendor option at an exorbitant prices.
The reason I work on multiple vendor platforms and software
packages is that the products from different vendors have different
strengths and weaknesses. I like having this choice and variety. It
pushes the vendors to make the best product possible and come up
with new ideas. I also like that the competition between vendors
keeps the price down.
MTC-00021710
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:32am
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,
John Edwards
265 Monroe Street
Denver, CO 80206
MTC-00021711
From: Jamie Starkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea and do not
support it.
Jamie Starkel
Network Administrator
KTU+A Landscape Architecture
[email protected]
MTC-00021712
From: Fleming, Grant
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:27am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I must say, I have been tremendously disappointed by the
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I don't pretend to admit that I
have the legal knowledge to propose what should be done is this
case, but I think any professional in the IT industry that is not
directly affiliated with Microsoft (or in their pockets) knows that
the giant in Redmond is as much of a monopoly as the world has
today. It devours other companies, crushes competition, envelops the
industry, represses innovation and is putting us in the position
where we all have to neatly line up and use
[[Page 27072]]
their mediocre products or be "left in the dark". They
have ingrained themselves in so many aspects of the industry that
these days you would be hard pressed not to have many of their
products on your machine..and if you are one of those who actually
manage that, you are constantly "swimming upstream" and
wrestling to be able to function in the Computer Society. One
company should not have that sway and domination....especially not
one who is known to turn out substandard, vulnerable and unreliable
products. If Microsoft had achieved their market dominance through
superior software, superior support and superior service, I would
hold them in high regard. I know...and I'm sure you know....this is
not the case.
Thus, much like I have heard from others, I view the settlement
as more of an endorsement of their practices than anything
else.....and I consider it a travesty. I'm sure deciding what should
be done in the case is an incredibly difficult issue and I don't
pretend to have the answer. I just know what is proposed is NOT it.
Grant J. Fleming
PC/LAN Administrator
Wellpath Community Health Plans
6330 Quadrangle Drive (Suite 500)
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(phone) 919-493-1210 x 3756
(pager) 877-683-3820
(fax) 919-419-3854
MTC-00021713
From: Bob McLennan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Sincerely,
Bob McLennan
MTC-00021714
From: Troy Folger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement will have little or no
effect on Microsoft's business practices, and therefore should be
rejected. The most telling point is this: the only viable
competition to Microsoft operating systems are FREE ones. OS/2,
Netware, BeOS, and other operating systems offered for the Intel
hardware platform have been crushed by Microsoft's stranglehold
monopoly. Linux and other free unix variants survive only because
millions of people worldwide are donating their time and talent to
the projects.
In addition, Microsoft has not used their monopoly position to
strengthen their products. Instead, they have added utilities and
features designed to crush competition outside the operating system
category (utilities, browsers, media players, etc). Meanwhile, their
products suffer from security flaws so outrageous that the public
would reject Microsoft products outright-except that there is
no alternative.
Any settlement must address the fundamental issue: Microsoft has
been found to be a monopoly, and consumers will continue to suffer,
more and more, unless an effective barrier to Microsoft's
monopolistic practices is erected. The proposed settlement contains
no such barrier.
Sincerely,
Troy Folger
Austin, TX
Citizen and Taxpayer of the USA
MTC-00021715
From: failover
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I DON'T AGREE
//Jesper
MTC-00021716
From: Tim Seltzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to add my voice against the DOJ proposed Microsoft
settlement. Microsoft has a history of predatory behavior and I
believe the settlement is neither punitive nor preventive of future
recurrences of such actions. We must protect the integrity of the
competitive environment for the good of the technology sector, which
is probably among the most critical there is, and for the long-term
good of United States economy.
Regards,
Tim Seltzer
Plano, TX
MTC-00021717
From: Krimo Salem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
Since the suit was brought up, three years ago, the market went
down and it never recovered. Let say that Microsoft is like a good
quarterback, and the industry is the team. The team (industry) wants
to hurt its quarterback (Microsoft), and when the team succeeds in
causing harm to its quarterback, it wonders why did not do so well.
So this suit is like a losing game for the industry. Carrying on
litigation against Microsoft causes harm to the industry. Thus the
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department must
be finalized so the team (industry) can get back to scoring.
The settlement might be a 15-yard penalty, but not to settle
would mean forfeiting the game altogether. The settlement instructs
Microsoft to make all future versions of its Windows OS to be
compatible to non-Microsoft software. Moreover, Microsoft has also
agreed not to retaliate against any computer makers that would want
to ship software that would compete with Windows, such as products
from AOL.
As fan of Microsoft and the industry, I must urge you to referee
this case fairly. I recommend that you make certain that this
settlement is confirmed, and the nation turns to focus on other
pressing issues.
Sincerely,
Krimo Salem
President & CEO
MTC-00021718
From: FrankButash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I think that the U.S. Government should get out of the Free
Market regarding Microsoft's alleged monopolistic practices. Let the
market place adjust itself without political interference from the
DOJ and the Democratic Party.
FB
MTC-00021719
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:34am
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,
leonard p daniels
37 crisfield street
yonkers, NY 10710
MTC-00021720
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:33am
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,
[[Page 27073]]
David Rumbaugh
511 McKenzie Court West
North Augusta, SC 29841
MTC-00021721
From: Steve Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38am
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Settlement
I am a computer user and also publisher of industry-specific
software that runs on Windows. The proposed settlement would be
tragic for small business persons such as me. Please, we cannot
afford to have our govenment prop up a dictatorial monopoly that
quashes all semblance of competition in the computer industry.
Steve Carlson
Upper Access Books
Non-fiction books and Publishers" Assistant software
www.upperaccess.com and www.pubassist.com
MTC-00021722
From: Lars Fredrik Dietrichson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
My firm has been an unwilling "hostage" of
Micro$oft's monopoly for 7 long years, and it is our sincere
conclusion that the more we pay for "buggy" software and
upgrades, the less we actually get!
We will now finally make the transition to wonderful,
trustworthy LINUX as opposed to Micro$oft, who makes unreliable,
unpredictive, and expensive "bloated" software. When
complaining about numerous "bugs" and annoyances, they
have the nerve to claim they are actually "wonderful
features". This would not be possible, if there was some
competition on the desktop, and not only on the server market. We do
belive Mr. Gates & Co. have made a tremendous destructive impact
on the software market, and they should be severely punished for
falsi- fying evidence in court. (Contempt for court.)
Yours sincerely
NAVAL Systems & Electronics A/S
Lars Fredrik Dietrichson/LFD
Head Master in charge/MMIC
MTC-00021723
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38am
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,
Frank Butash
229 South Quaker Lane
West Hartford, CT 06119-1943
MTC-00021724
From: John Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Once again-Don't hurt the innovative goose[Microsoft] that
has laid so many extrordinarily useful golden eggs!!!
John R.Carter
MTC-00021725
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36am
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,
Dan Fryk
302 Sundance court
Roseville, CA 95661
MTC-00021726
From: Steve Burbeck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First, let me be clear that my views do not represent those of
my employer, IBM, in any way.
I read the proposed final judgement in its entirety the day
after it was published, and yet again today. It is an artful
document. I do not have the legal expertise to appreciate the many
subtle uses of legal terms of art presumably put in by the DOJ to
place real restrictions on Microsoft's future conduct. But, in the
end, this settlement is about how the software industry works. I am
enough of a software industry "expert" to see many
artful ways that Microsoft has virtually neutered its usefulness in
redressing past distortions or in preventing further distortions in
the software industry caused by their illegal use of their monopoly
position. Here are the three I find most egregious:
1) The restrictions on who can be on the three member technical
committee or its supporting staff rule out most competent
participants in at least two ways. First, each must be a software
design and programming expert. That is a peculiar requirement in
this increasingly networked world. Expertise is also needed on
networking and Web issues, yet many such experts do not necessarily
qualify as software designers and programmers. Restricting all of
their support staff to be software designers or programmers is too
limiting. I have lived and worked with "design and
programming" experts for more than twenty years (and am one
myself). Few of them also understand the business, Web, and Internet
subtleties that Microsoft wields so well. Second, the restrictions
on employment rule out most viable candidates. Of those that meet
the technical requirements, nearly all either have recently or soon
will work for Microsoft or one of its competitors (note that
Microsoft is a competitor of nearly every kind of software firm, not
to mention ISP's, banks, travel software providers, game
manufacturers, the news media, and many others). The few that have
not and do not intend to work in the software industry (e.g., those
who do are retired, independently wealthy, or work for military, the
steel industry, university, or perhaps some other nonprofit
organization) typically have very little understanding of how the
software industry works. Between these two restrictions, the
Technical Committee will likely not be of very high quality.
Microsoft has proven to be very good at fooling those who try to
restrict its ambitions. This committee is designed to be easy to
fool.
2) The definition of "Microsoft middleware" and
"Microsoft middleware products" is both vital to the
settlement (since much of the settlement is specific to middleware),
and quite peculiar, especially from the perspective of an
"expert in software design and programming" such as
those who will populate the TC. And Microsoft has demonstrated
willingness to manipulate such definitions when they converted IE
from a stand-alone product to an integral part of the operating
system. Nonetheless, the TC experts must use this contorted
definition instead of their own understanding. Many others have
analyzed the middleware definitions and found them wanting as well.
All I can say here is that when I first read the definition it was
clear to me that Microsoft has won enormous flexibility to determine
what is, or is not, middleware. It reminds me of the loophole
Microsoft foisted on Ann Bingaman and the DOJ in the "95
settlement that turned out to virtually emasculate that settlement.
That blunder did not help the DOJ's reputation. Nor will this one.
3) Even if the above issues are solved, five years is too short
a period of oversight. The two year extension for bad behavior does
not materially affect the issue. It will take at least ten years.
Regards,
Steve Burbeck
109 Dundee Court
[[Page 27074]]
Cary, NC 27511
MTC-00021727
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36am
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,
Aaron Alberg
9027 West Shorewood Drive
Apt. 603
Mercer Island, WA 98040
MTC-00021728
From: Charlotte Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe this case has been settled and nothing further needs
to be done. We believe the settlement to be in the public interest.
Charlotte Martin
Donald Perry
[email protected]
MTC-00021729
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, which is everyone!
My husband and I are dismayed at the amount of time and money
spent to ruin a successful American company that is providing jobs,
helping the economy, etc. It appears we have been pulled in to favor
competitors. This is not governments job.
As other companies are developing software etc. it appears to
even us as novices that they aren't going to be the dominating force
in the market. Settle. Let everyone get on with business and life.
We can not help wondering if we paid as much attention to our
foreign policy as we do to stopping an American business company if
we wouldn't be a lot better off.
Pouring money and most of their efforts into law suits can ruin
any company. And why? Let's settle and move on.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Gary and Marilyn Rands
gmrands at AOL.com
MTC-00021730
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
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,
Elbert Pirtle
247 Jones Rd
Hampton, GA 30228-2838
MTC-00021731
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38am
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 C. Weaver
2501 W. 63 St.
Mission Hills, KS 66208-1909
MTC-00021732
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:37am
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,
Gayle Anderson
1221 Zaragoza Ave.
Colton, CA 92324
MTC-00021733
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36am
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,
Irina Edirisinghe
3905 N. Prospect Ave
Shorewood, WI 53211
MTC-00021734
From: Gerald Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This country is in the midst of profound trauma and
war-enough already with the persecution of Microsoft.
Sincerely
Gerald Meyer
MTC-00021735
From: Scott Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Concerned:
I believe that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the
US DOJ DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY PUNISH Microsoft Corporation for past
illegal behavior. It also DOES NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT DETERRENT to
future like behavior. If approved Microsoft will know that it can
continue to bury potential competitors with
[[Page 27075]]
monopolistic business practices with no fear of more than a slap on
the wrist from those charged with protecting the American public
from this sort of behavior. ...s. -
Scott Burns http://
www.lentigo.net
pub 1024D/9DA64618 2001-11-17 Scott Burns
Fingerprint: 2F1B A22E 33C3 FD3D BBE4 D5E2 728B 4753 9DA6 4618
MTC-00021736
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea.
Matthew Conway
[email protected]
MTC-00021737
From: albo1319@hotmail. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
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,
Alison Bliss
1319 Chuckawala Drive
Cottonwood, AZ 86326
MTC-00021738
From: Matt Smyj
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
The settlement is wrong. It is an insufficient reprimand and
does nothing to remedy the Monopoly that Microsoft holds.
Sincerely,
Matthew K. Smyj
MTC-00021739
From: Douglas, Thack
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the compromise setllement is a bad idea. microsoft will use the
ability to freely distribute their software at a price they are
allowed to set to solidify and perpetuate their illegal monopoly
practices. they will never be dislodged until they can be actually
punished.
thackery douglas
senior network administrator
MTC-00021740
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:42am
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,
John Sproat
1419 E. Manasota Beach Rd.
Englewood, FL 34223-6341
MTC-00021741
From: Chris Leazure- Systems Engineer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi, I would like to add my opinion that the proposed final
judgment in United States vs Microsoft case is insufficient and
lacks many corrective actions especially in the area of use of
monopoly power to control a market. Microsoft is and has been
reacting to the growing use and popularity of Java and cross-
platform Java tools to squelch its use by creating incompatible
knock-off versions that break the "write once and run
anywhere" (multi-OS) support, leveraging their 95 desktop OS
market monopoly to create market dispersion and trying to kill any
form of competition against their OS/Application monopoly. Microsoft
could take Java and make it better and run faster on their OS/
platform (Intel) without breaking compatibility which would
represent some amount and form of goodwill towards the overall
computing market being the huge monopoly that they are today.
Instead they are sore losers and are leveraging every once of energy
they have to preserve their monopoly by pushing, through their huge
marketing voice, that they have a better computing methodology (so
what if it only runs on our OS), stifiling competition and steering
the market into a Microsoft and MS partners only environment.
Usually, the open market that the US has proudly built takes
care of monopolistic activities such as what Microsoft is doing with
Java and their OS/Application integration but it is sometimes a slow
process. Hopefully, with minor thoughtful action by the USDOJ in
this case the ground work will be laid to feed continuing innovation
in the computing and high-tech markets in relation to monopolistic
powers and allow the open market to correct itself. Regards,
Chris Leazure 972-788-3140
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00021742
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:40am
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,
Keith Miller
11727 SE 270th St.
Kent, WA 98031-7840
MTC-00021743
From: Anthony Lucente
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To be as blunt as possible; Microsoft has proven itself time and
again that they cannot be trusted. They've been caught lying in
court, they've already exploited loopholes in remides from previous
law suits (referring to the 1995 case) and they even attempt to
craft remides that seruptiously benefit themselves (referring to the
on-going case concerning the 100 or so school districts). Microsoft
is evil. They aggressively pursue an anti-competative business
stratagy that hurts the computer industry. Their anti-competative
acts, in the long run, hold back progress and innovation in the
computer industry. For these reasons the Sherman Act was created,
and rightly so.
I believe Judge Jackson saw exactly this, that Microsoft is evil
and untrustworthy, and concluded that the only real way to protect
the computer industry is to break-up Microsoft. It is my belief that
a broken-up Microsoft would not only protect the computer industry
but protect Microsoft as well. Without any true competiton Microsoft
products would stagnat, and some believe that this is already
happening. In the end, competiton not any individual company, is the
true innovator.
Thank you,
Tony Lucente
Anthony Lucente
Mac and Network Specialist
The Wistar Institute
[[Page 27076]]
3601 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone:215 898-3737
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00021744
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pro Microsoft. The only way that this settlement could be MORE
in the public interest is if it were LESS punitive against
Microsoft. It's high time that consumer be returned to the position
of judge in software competition. Using the courts to restrain and
cripple your competition is unethical even if it IS legal. Stop
punishing success.
-Jim Crawford
1104 S 223rd St
Des Moines, Wa
98198
206 371 1776
MTC-00021745
From: cwatts@GUILFORD. EDU@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs, I oppose the proposed settlement because it would do
nothing to solve the problem of Microsoft's monopoly powers. Yours,
Coleman Watts, Greensboro, NC
MTC-00021746
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:44am
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,
John Novinger
5067 Cumberland Dr
Cypress, CA 90630
MTC-00021747
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
Subject: subject=Microsoft
Hi!
I simply wanted to state that in my opinion the proposed
settlement in the MS case is absolutely inacceptable. It doesn't
take into consideration the constant threat MS has posed and is
posing against it's competition, and it will instate MS's
suppressive monopolistic behaviour as an acceptable economic outcome
in this market segment. This suppresses innovation, because
innovation has to be a chance given to everybody instead to only one
large company (which in fact hardly ever innovates but uses it's
monopolistic and financial power to stiffle anyone else's innovative
thoughts or products). Let's give Microsoft the same treatment they
have given everyone else in the last 10 years; control their every
move (as you did when IBM had its monopoly back in the 60s and 70s)
and force them to play by the rules which they otherwise will surely
be not. They've always found some backdoor, and this settlement is
full of backdoors already!
With regards,
Phil
([email protected])
MTC-00021748
From: JCir2000@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am responding to the recent law suit filed by AOL, through
their Netscape devision. This law suit alleges that microsoft
brought unfair business practices to the browser market place. I
consider this nonsense and an attempt on AOL's part to further
disrupt Microsofts ability to develope new products and run its
business effectively. The bottom line is that Microsoft was much
more aggressive in the market place and infact had a better product
for the user. AOL, is part of the group who influenced the
investigation by the Jutice department. This kind of corporate
behavior using the legal system to bring down a competitor is very
disruptive to our American corporate way of life and to the
consumer. It is costly and counter productive.
Sincerely,
Joe Cirillo
MTC-00021749
From: jeffs@gandmadagency. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:41am
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,
Jeffrey Saul
719 Westfield Ave.
Westfield, NJ 07090-3324
MTC-00021750
From: James A. Wood Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James A. Wood Jr.
16 Montagu Street, Apt E
Charleston, SC 29401
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a resident of South Carolina, I am writing to express my
support of the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice
Department. After three years of litigation, Microsoft and the
government have settled a suit that has profound implications for
all software developers and the rest of the IT industry.
For example, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against
computer makers who ship software that competes with anything in its
Windows operating system. The company has also agreed to document
and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are
internal to Windows" operating system products.
Furthermore, a technical committee will be in place to make sure
Microsoft is in compliance with the settlement, and aid in dispute
resolution. I urge that you back off your pursuit of Microsoft, and
go after companies like Wal-Mart who are destroying our communities.
Sincerely,
James A. Wood Jr.
cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
MTC-00021751
From: Robert J. Gervais
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:45am
Subject: DOJ Microsoft Crusade
Department of Justice:
Please stop this uneeded and tax spending dollar crusade against
Microsoft. Supposedly the government has reached an agreement with
Microsoft settling the ludicrous charges against them. Settle it.
Bill Clinton who couldn't shake them down is out of office. This
case is an affront to the few corporations with integrity left in
business in the United States. Settlement time has come. Please do
what your paid to do. Investigate, reach an acccord, settle it.
Spend your time worrying about the Taliban Johns" of the
world, prosecute them as you failed to do with Jane Fonda.
Investigate those corporations such as ENRON whose CEO and other
high officials who are alleged to have bilked their small
shareholders and employees IRA holdings out of a billion dollars in
the past year. That's where your efforts need to be directed. GOD
BLESS AMERICA
Bob Gervais
Chelan, WA 98816
-------- Phil
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://
mobile.msn.com
MTC-00021752
From: cherokeesv@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27077]]
Date: 1/24/02 11:42am
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,
Ed Wenigman
25825 104th Ave. SE
Suite 150
Kent, WA 98031
MTC-00021753
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:44am
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,
Roselyn Cresse
P O Box 133
Acton, CA 93510
MTC-00021754
From: Bill Clinton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. With the security
of our country and financial infastructure more and more dependent
upon the security of our computer systems, allowing Microsoft a
monopoly through unfair practices imperils us all.
William Clinton
Deerfield Beach Florida
MTC-00021755
From: R B Clontz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my greatest desire to see Microsoft receive the most
severe, swift, and direct punishment for forcing its monopoly of
software usage on the computing public. Microsoft has unfairly
squelched competition by making itself the only software available
for many users and wants its web browser to be the default for all
operating systems. Please render a strong and costly judgment
against Microsoft for its monopoly!
Sincerely,
Randy Blake Clontz
MTC-00021756
From: Bill Y.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft antitrust suit.
I find the proposed settlement both insufficient and
unenforceable. Here are some justifications for that statement.
A) Not-for-profits fail to be represented. This essentially
disenfranchises the second-largest operating systems group in the
world (that being Linux) as well as the single most common web
server software (that being Apache) as well as the most common file
server (that being Samba). III(j)(2) specifies that non-profits need
not recieve API, Documentation or Communications Protocols, the
proposed "relief from monopoly" actually
-encourages- further monopolistic practices on the part
of Microsoft.
B) Section III(d) allows Microsoft to determine who is to be
permitted access to interoperability data (thereby allowing
Microsoft to freeze out any up-and-coming competitor), thus ensuring
that Microsoft will -continue- to be a defacto monopoly.
C) The final issue, enforcibility, is due to the penalty clause
should Microsoft violate the terms of the agreement. Simply stated,
the sole penalty is that Microsoft would suffer, should they violate
the terms, is to have the time duration of the agreement extended.
This would imply that Microsoft could accept the agreement in
court, the judge could bang the gavel and close the case, and then
Microsoft could literally rip up the agreement on the court house
steps, because the only -penalty- for disobeying the
agreement is to have the agreement extended in duration- which, if
you're disobeying the agreement in the normal course of doing
monopoly business, is no impediment to the monopoly business at all.
That's no penalty at all.
Having followed the original trial case with great interest, I
would recommend a far more severe penalty for Microsoft, including
adding the following penalties: 1) adding significant fines ( on the
order of 10% of the total market value of Microsoft ) 2) requiring,
within 2 years, forced divestiture of the following business
segments from Microsoft's core (operating system) business: -
optional and office software -network / ISP services -mass media,
entertainment services, entertainment devices 3) adding a penalty
that bars Microsoft from bidding on any government sales when in
violation of the current agreement. 4) opening an investigation as
to whether any of the responsible individuals at Microsoft committed
actionable acts.
I would recommend the following documents as interesting
commentary on the proposed Microsoft settlement. -An activist
site- written by lawyers for the lay public: http://www.ccianet.org/
papers/ms/sellout.php3 -Robert Cringely (noted computer commentator
on P.B.S. and all-around smart guy): http://www.pbs.org/cringely /
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
-Sincerely
William S. Yerazunis, PhD,
Research Scientist,
Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory
MTC-00021757
From: Chris Dalla
To: with a subject of "Microsoft Settlement"
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As an individual who has been involved in the field of personal
computing almost since its inception, and as a U.S. Citizen who
believes that the unbiased administration of justice, above all
else, should be the primary end goal of our court system, I would
like it known that it is my firm belief that the proposed settlement
in the case of the United States v. Microsoft does not levy
sufficient punitive action against Microsoft. One of the founding
precepts of our nation is that all citizens or entities will be
treated equally and dispassionately in the eyes of the law. The
market influence, bankroll, and corporate size associated with
Microsoft and Bill Gates should in no way except them from just
punishment for wrongdoing. For years, Bill Gates and Microsoft have
been leeching the vitality out of the field of personal computing,
unfairly wielding their market influence to the detriment of their
competitors, and conducting business in a manner that is not in the
best interest of the public. The time is now to send a message, not
only to Microsoft and Bill Gates, but to big business everywhere
that the sort of bullying, whiny business practices which Microsoft
has established as its standard operating procedure are
unacceptable. Acceptance of this settlement does nothing more than
send a clear signal to big business, and to the world in general,
that our court system is really interested in nothing more than
finding in favor of the highest bidder. Furthermore, I feel that
this settlement is likely to set a precedent which is could easily
to hinder the court's ability to hand down a strong judgement in the
future, should a similar case arise in the months or years to come.
Thank you for your time.
With concern,
Chris Dalla
Vice President,
Clear Blue Engineering, Inc.
email: [email protected]
smail: 6040 West 91st avenue
Westminster, CO 80031
phone: 303-412-9477
fax: 303-412-9457
[[Page 27078]]
MTC-00021758
From: Potter, Bob Ext.1411
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
(The business world is not a philanthropic organization)
Microsoft should be given an award not continually harassed by
their competition. I'm begging you, Please stop this insanity. Bring
this case to conclusion and lets get on with life.
Regards,
Bob Potter
(831) 796-1411
www.co.monterey.ca.us
MTC-00021759
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:43am
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,
Rebecca Mihopulos
49728 High St. Ext.
St.Clairsville, OH 43950-1677
MTC-00021760
From: Tony Mangan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46am
Subject: On the Microsoft issue
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," states the AOCTP, "not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen."
Please end this witch hunt against one of our finest American
traditions, "free enterprise"! If there was a point to
be made at the onset of all the Microsoft nonsense, I am sure you
would agree that it has been made and it's time to stop the nonsense
that can only inhibit companies from trying to grow in the future.
Sincerely,
Anthony Mangan
MTC-00021761
From: Robert Allinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to state that as a firm supporter of open source
and and gnu-gpl, I think that the settlement is not going to
suffice. I would like to see microsoft hit hard for this, and I
would like to see there tactics forced to change. These guys are
responsible for some of the nastiest business tactics known to man.
And we let it slide. Please do something to aid us in our fight to
survice against the giant. Free open source.
Robert Allinson
MTC-00021762
From: Tim Poschel
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My experience of Microsoft is a company that provides tools and
business agreements that encourage smaller companies to endeavor to
create new technologies and new markets. Unfortunately, when those
markets begin to reach a status that would truly be economically
advantageous to smaller companies and their shareholders, Microsoft
apishly integrates inferior versions of the technology into there
operating systems and declare them "innovation". Whether
the motivation is malice or fear, the impact is the same.
I've not been closely following the details of the DOJ's case
against Microsoft. While I agree with the findings of the District
and Appellate courts that Microsoft engaged in illegal practices, I
believe the proposed final judgment in the case is weak and
ineffective. I comment here with reservation, as I typically embrace
a free trade stance in which government has an extremely limited
roll in the function of business. Truly, I believe governments
prosecute monopolies because they want to eliminate their own
competition. As it is, the previous administration's handling of the
case was a root cause in the burst of the .com bubble effectively
committing one of the largest destructions of personal wealth in
modern history. Although the decline in technologies may have been
inevitable and warranted, I don't believe the government should have
been the trigger.
As the lines between networking and operating system continue to
blur, however, I believe the government has a roll in enabling free
trade in the computer technology arena. Specifically, the proposed
final judgment should include the following remedies:
(1) Microsoft should be mandated to provide at no fee, open
source licensing of all operating system code including networking
and middleware protocols, device drivers, etc.
(2) Compliance should be monitored and enforced by external
independent audit. Operating systems-specifically networking
and middleware stacks-comprise a "software bus"
structure that enables real innovation and competition to occur.
Requiring Microsoft to release these would be similar to requiring
the AT&T of old to publish standards on transmission voltages,
switch requirements, dial tones frequencies, etc. As to compliance,
I frankly don't trust Microsoft to self-police; not out of malice,
rather out of incompetence.
Thank you for allowing me to comment,
Timothy Poschel
Winix Solutions, Inc.
Roswell, GA
MTC-00021763
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:45am
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,
Roger Pervere
6706 Tam O'Shanter Dr.
# 128
Stockton, CA 95210-3320
MTC-00021764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:44am
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,
John R. Fish, Jr.
1410 N. Nevada Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80907-7431
[[Page 27079]]
MTC-00021765
From: Saishankar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I completely oppose the settlement proposed by the States
against Microsoft because:
a) It is purely driven by the personal goals of the companies
rather than the needs of the consumers. I being a consumer , feel ,
I have all the choices in the market to run any OS I want or any
applications I want
b) Killing Microsoft is just going to create another one in its
place under government sanction
c) All is fair, in Love , Business and War.
d) This will set a bad precedence , as any unsuccessful company
, can gain market share by suing the market leader.
Please consider SUN , AOL , ORACLE , IBM . Their track records
aren't any better than Microsoft.
Thanx for giving the opportunity to voice our opinions.
A Happy Consumer.
MTC-00021766
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
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 Brown
1865 Maayfair Drive
Omaha, NE 68144-1049
MTC-00021767
From: Travis Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to state my disapproval of the Microsoft Anti-Trust
Settlement:
1) With Regards to Microsoft settling by giving computers and
software to schools:
A) Allowing Microsoft to buy it's way out by getting a wedge
into a market where it has been unsuccessful in the past is not a
good Idea in my opinion
B) At the least, Microsoft should be forced to give Money
instead of forcing the schools in question to use Microsoft or gain
no benefit from the settlement
2) So long as their "Dubious business practices" are
more profitable than "playing fair" they will continue
to use their monopolistic advantage to force out competitors in all
fields that they choose to enter.
A) Example: Windows XP. XP, due to it's design is almost like a
petri dish for internet viruses. The TCP/IP Stack is completely
open, allowing anything from the standard Microsoft attacking
viruses to ones that allow a cracker(the malicious type of Hacker)
to copy everything off of your computer and take complete control of
it (I believe that this sort of virus may already exist, but I think
they mostly require that a Trojan program(a program that claims to
be one thing but does something else instead, like a word processing
program that actually formats the hard drive) to be run before they
can work properly. With XP, I would expect that this could easily be
incorporated in a worm like the "I Love You" virus.
While I have not ever written a virus, I am quite familiar with
scripting and network protocols, and a whenever you make something
easier for the naive user, you also make it much easier for the
malicious user, That would be why there are so many more Windows
viruses as compared to Unix/linux viruses(in addition to the greater
installed Windows base) I have even heard many claims that the
vulnerabilities in XP are designed to make the Internet as it is
today(Primarily using the TCP Protocol on top of IP[TCP/IP])
untenable due to virus proliferation. This could pave the way for
Microsoft to introduce their own proprietary Protocol to go on top
of TCP or even IP that would basically divide the internet into two
pieces, Those systems running on a Microsoft Operating System, and
those that are not, and those that are not could not access anything
that was on a system running a MS OS.
The only reason that I would suspect that this is not indeed a
Microsoft plot to force everyone on-line to use a Microsoft
Operating system, is the fact that Microsoft uses Linux for their
own web servers(Probably having found their own operating systems
too fragile/bulky/high-maintenance for any serious/vital/mission-
critical usage) This is not the first time Microsoft has tried
something of this nature, and it won't be the last, unless they are
shown that they cannot treat computers as their own private domain.
Travis Watkins
Implementation Services
Data Junction Corporation
512.467.1801 x354
2110 White Horse #E
Austin, TX 78756
[email protected]
www.datajunction.com
MTC-00021768
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46am
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,
George Lowe
1031 Waterbird Way
Santa Clara, CA 95051-4214
MTC-00021769
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe the Microsoft Settlement is fair and euitable,and
would like to see us move on without further delay.
Louise and Michael Maloney
Hardy, VA
MTC-00021770
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:45am
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,
Barbara Bruce
2315-20 ST
Greeley, CO 80634
MTC-00021771
From: Phil Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Philip Oliver
To whom it may concern,
Speaking personally as a self taught programmer of over 20
years-and seeing firsthand the computer industry rise from
virtually non-existent to the powerhouse that it is today-I
can safely say that Microsoft has been enormously productive and
enormously -good- in this industry. It is safe to say
that without Microsoft there
[[Page 27080]]
wouldn't be a PC software industry worth talking about. (No, I do
not work for them.)
The success of Microsoft was not due to coercion. That is the
realm of the government. Its success was due to simple marketplace
success and the fact that its products, for whatever their faults,
generally work very well and aid hundreds of millions of people
globally, every day, in doing their jobs better, or to state it more
dramatically, in doing their jobs period. Those who whine that they
couldn't compete are overlooking two simple facts-(1) There
are plenty of companies, an entire -industry-, which
-does- compete with Microsoft-(2) Microsoft has no
moral obligation to "help out" those who cannot compete.
This is business. Competitive products are a fact of life. So is
making a profit, if a company wishes to survive.
It is not however all about competition.
My business, and the business of hundreds of thousands if not
millions of other programmers, ultimately depends on the existence
of widespread standards which facilitate our ability to work on any
one of an enormous number of projects. The operating systems and
office application software produced by Microsoft have provided such
de-facto standards. It is a safe bet that the very software used by
the government to attack Microsoft was written by Microsoft itself!
Think about the meaning of that.
In short, the real question here is why the U.S. government is
attacking one of America's greatest success stories. I say,
personally, as an American citizen: I absolutely do not support any
government anti-trust action against Microsoft, and I find it
morally repugnant that any such action was ever taken. While the
terrorists of the world conspired and successfully took the lives of
thousands of Americans, and plunged the American economy into chaos
in the process, the U.S. government was spending untold millions of
dollars attacking its own companies. Rather than focusing on its
actual job of protecting Americans, it showed itself completely
incompetent to the job and is, in actual fact, aiding the very work
the terrorists wish to accomplish: the undermining of America. This
is a monstrously evil inversion of priorities on the part of the
U.S. government, and the fact that it suffered grievously itself in
the attacks is actually justice, rewarding it for its own inaction
and incompetence. It's quite easy to attack Bill Gates, you know
where he works and where he lives, and he probably doesn't even own
a gun.
Where's Osama bin Laden?
In short-there are plenty of real threats against this
country that ought to be taking 100% of the attention of its
government. Stop attacking the lifeblood that makes the country
worth defending in the first place. If there were such a thing, Bill
Gates deserves a medal for the enormous good he and his company have
achieved in a scant 27 years of existence.
MTC-00021772
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46am
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,
Dwight Miller
4027 Green Road
Springfield, TN 37172-6956
MTC-00021773
From: [email protected]. k12.me.us@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:48am
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,
Robert Curtis
143 Palmer Rd.
Thorndike, ME 04986
MTC-00021774
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
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,
Linda Childers
N 613 Conklin Rd
Veradale, WA 99037
MTC-00021775
From: Mike Choy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed settlement. Microsoft has clearly
engaged in anti-competitive behavior for many years and the remedy
should be more than just a slap on the wrist.
Thank you.
Michael Choy
Stanford, CA
MTC-00021776
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
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,
Elaine Jones
2284 Hartwell Hwy
Elberton, GA 30635
MTC-00021777
From: Allen D. Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. The proposed settlement does not provide a remedy
for Microsoft's monopolistic practices but instead reinforces its
anti-competitive stance. What's more, providing compensation in
"free" software costs Microsoft nothing and simply
reinforces their monopoly power. An appropriate remedy should punish
Microsoft
[[Page 27081]]
for their anticompetitive practices and provide real remedies to
foster competition.
Sincerely,
Allen D. Ball
MTC-00021778
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
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,
bruce hudson
161 Bent Tree Drive
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
MTC-00021779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46am
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,
Margaret Pyles
5846 Hickory Hollow Lane
Doylestown, PA 18901
MTC-00021780
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:49am
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,
Dave & Celia Marrs
2819 Longmeadow
San Antonio, TX 78224-1212
MTC-00021781
From: Kevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement,
NO!
This settlement is not in the public interest. It is bad for
competition in software by not placing protections in place for
competing businesses. It does not properly prevent predatory
practices by Microsoft because of its narrow definitions and
generous provisions. It does not help improve competition in the
software world (or for any other business Microsoft decides to get
into) because it fails to prohibit Microsoft from using restrictive
license terms. It does not protect consumers, because Microsoft can
continue to make their product even more incompatible over time,
requiring users to upgrade. It also fails to prevent Microsoft from
punishing OEMs who attempt to provide consumers additional services
or choices that are not in Microsoft's interests or that compete
with Microsoft products.
Kevin L. Sitze
MTC-00021782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47am
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,
MARY DEMARCO
1182 WEDGEWOOD TERRACE
WESTERVILLE, OH 43082
MTC-00021783
From: Bill McGonigle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Please know that I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement.
No settlement for abuse of monopoly power should strengthen said
monopoly position, which is the inevitable outcome of the proposed
settlement.
Sincerely,
Bill McGonigle
251 Croydon Tpke
Plainfield NH 03781--
-Bill McGonigle
Research & Development
Medical Media Systems, Inc.
http://www.medicalmedia.com
+1.603.298.5509x329
MTC-00021784
From: Tom (038) Wilma Llewellyn
To: Microsoft
Date: 1/24/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel Microsoft has been hassled enough, Lets stop these
frivolous litigations and get on with doing business.
Tom D. Llewellyn
593 Vintage Dr.
Elkton, OR 97436
[email protected]
MTC-00021785
From: Blair Heiserman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to take a moment to voice my displeasure with
the current settlement / remedy against Microsoft. The proposed
settlement lets Microsoft off with no real punishment for using and
abusing their desktop monopoly. Microsoft has leveraged their
monopoly to unfairly stop competition. This can be seen in many
different areas from the boot loader (restrictions against allowing
other operating systems to be able to load with or instead of
Windows, BeOS being a good example, through their OEM contracts),
the browser (Internet Explorer and prohibitions against bundling
Netscape in contracts with OEM manufacturers and even with Apple.
Another recent example is attempting to artificially lock out
non-Microsoft browsers from MSN), add on products (Windows Media
Player, the built-in DVD player on XP, the MP3 ripper on XP, all of
which are inferior products to those sold by independent vendors,
but because of their inclusion in the OS will likely cause consumers
to put up with the limitations inherent to the included products
rather than finding the superior replacements), default application
preferences (Windows uses various methods to define what the default
application will be for a given file extension, and it is often
extremely difficult to change or remove the preference of using a
Microsoft application over any alternate program, Programming API
(Microsoft maintains
[[Page 27082]]
closed Application Programming Interfaces for its products, but the
greater problem is the frequency with which they are willing to
change underlying code to leverage monopoly power, this was seen
with Dr. DOS, with Internet Explorer, and frequently crops up as
incompatibilities between OS versions, which force users to upgrade
to keep their programs running), file formats (the proprietary and
constantly changing file formats for Excel, Word, and Powerpoint,
which frequently force upgrades to Microsoft Office since the newer
versions are incompatible with earlier versions [note that this has
been less true since Office 97]), and version upgrades (Windows 95,
98, 98SE, ME, NT, 2000, and XP. Most of these have simply been bug
fixes of the previous versions, and in most cases it was impossible
to obtain these bug fixes without upgrading to the newer version
which typically introduced new features along with the bug fixes
which would create further instability in the system. Additionally
Microsoft has canceled service packs for systems in order to force
upgrades. Service Pack 7 for NT was canceled, leaving many to apply
hundreds of hot-fixes to achieve a secure/stable system). Given the
numerous and varied ways that Microsoft is using and perpetuating
its monopoly a much stronger judgment should be created. I see a
whole host of options from not allowing Microsoft to further
integrate other applications into their OS, and in fact forcing them
to strip out many of their current add on products, open sourcing
their APIs or forcing them to keep their APIs open to vendors who
would like to create compatible products, forcing continued
maintenance of OS releases, splitting the company to keep the
integration for allowing Microsoft to be the single source for all
computer programs, limiting their ability to lock out other vendors
with OEM contracts. Given Microsoft's proven guilt in this case and
non-compliance with previous anti-trust violations I can only hope
that this time a more serious punishment will be tendered. Microsoft
should be allowed the freedom to innovate, but they should actually
have to be innovative as opposed to simply leveraging out their
competition.
-Blair Heiserman
Please do not publish my address.
55 Barrett Rd Apt 509
Berea, OH 44017
MTC-00021786
From: Bob Koh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly opposed to the DOJ proposed settlement with
Microsoft. It is far from adequate in controlling the monopolistic
practises of MS. The DOJ must formulate a much tougher package from
scratch.
MTC-00021787
From: John Zink
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I thought the purpose of the anti-trust laws was to protect U.S.
consumers from harmful practices by businesses. I also thought the
beauty of our system was that companies would battle head-to-head
for markets based on the quality and price of their products. The
consumer would then benefit from these "fair fights". It
seems to me that it is not in accord with this spirit that one
company can gain an advantage over another, who is beating it in the
marketplace by offering superior products and prices, by unleashing
a barrage of lawyers. It also seems to me that is what has happend
in the Microsoft case. Microsoft should not have been punished for
being innovative and offering good products at good prices. But that
is what happened. To end the matter, the company agreed to terms
which should be acceptable to all but their competition. Surely, the
competition would prefer to have the market to themselves, and will
continue to press any advantage to harm Microsoft. The government
should not be a party to such business antics. For the record, own
both Microsoft and AOL-TW stock...and more of the latter than the
former. But fair is fair, and I think the ultimate aim of our
elected officials should be that they are fair to all citizens.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
John Zink
MTC-00021788
From: KWM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement.
I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis on
the World Wide Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. I
also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, namely that
the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the
emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is
therefore not in the public interest. It should not be adopted
without substantial revision to address these problems.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Melvin
email: [email protected]
East Bend, North Carolina, U.S.A
CC:k-w-melvin @yahoo.com@inetgw
MTC-00021789
From: BCoolGranny@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:50am
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,
Billie Powell
23927 60th Ave. S.
#H-102
Kent, WA 98032
MTC-00021790
From: Brown, Terry
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft
I absolutely oppose any judicial action against Microsoft. Based
on the evidence, they did not forcefully expropriate money or
property from anyone, nor did they through the use or threat of
force, prohibit fair competition.
Terry S. Brown
Vice President,
Manufacturing and Process
Industry Practice,
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Inc.
55 Old Bedford Road
Lincoln, MA 01773
Tel. 781.402.1183
Fax 703.991.7542
Cell 781.929.2713
[email protected]
Join Balanced Scorecard Online Free at http://www.bscol.com
MTC-00021791
From: Doug Cure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the settlement. I think it gives the small
amount of justice that was needed and still allows Microsoft to
develop great software. Microsoft has been bogged down now for a
couple years working on this lawsuit that never should have happened
anyway. Microsoft is a good company and is providing great solutions
for many customers. The fact that their product is better and more
people use it should not be case for litigation. It is time for the
Government and Microsoft to be done with this, as there are more
important things in the world to accomplish right now, like
supporting the war on terrorism.
MTC-00021792
From: Todd Perumal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If microsoft were split up into two companies that would be
great for the economy. Office is still a well selling product and
with the success with office v.x for mac os x, it can easily be seen
that if office didn't have to worry about cutting into profits for
windows, it could be ported to every platform out there and thus
stimulate the large market for productivity software where
[[Page 27083]]
micorosoft is king. This is the same for other products that
microsoft produces. Also, since windows would now be separate, it
could compete with other operating systems. I do feel that first
something needs to be done to even the playing field. Microsoft has
been stealing ideas for the past 20 years from other companies and
getting rich through bully tactics. It is time to give something
back...like maybe having microsoft make windows open source .....all
the other os'es are open source. Whatever the choice is, the
industry will be much better if it were not dominated by one
company.
Todd Perumal
College Student, Dallas, TX
MTC-00021793
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:50am
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,
Glenda Macdonald
2188 Roaring Camp Dr.
Gold River, CA 95670-7640
MTC-00021794
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With regard to the suit recently filed against Microsoft by AOL
Time Warner: I feel that AOL Time Warner should spend its time
competing for market share through innovation and customer service
rather than spending time, money and energy whining to lawyers and
judges.
Gary Prickett
MTC-00021795
From: David Suminsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
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 ),
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 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,
J. David Suminsby
Sr. Software Engineer
Fundtech Corp.
Burlington, MA
MTC-00021796
From: Jon Grizzle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am an Electrical Engineer with 20+ years in hardware and
software designing. I have seen the birth of both the MSN browser
and
[[Page 27084]]
the Netscape browser. The computer market has and is supported by
customers that like friendly and intuitive computers. Early
computers were very unfriendly and not intuitive. They intimidated
the user. Software developers have been known to say the user is a
dummy when really they were the dummies. Why software designers are.
The control mechanism of the computer is the software which the
software person designs, and we the user try to logically use the
computer. If the mind of the software designing person is logical
the logical mind of the user can easily use the computer.
Consequently, the software designers mind or the computer user's
mind is not logical. Which one is illogical? Through many reasons
job security is not high inside Corporate America. Therefore, the
designer adds complexity in his design to prevent other designers
from taking their jobs away. Then only the original designer has the
life long support of the design. Through Corporate America lay offs
a very inexperienced new illogical designer must take over support
of the old illogical design, and the logical mind of the computer
user, we, must tolerate to be connected and use the computer. I
received the following message by e-mail the other day: Some days
this story rings true! An unemployed man goes to apply for a job
with AOL or Microsoft as a janitor. The manager there arranges for
him to take an aptitude test (Floors, sweeping and cleaning). After
the test, the manager says, "You will be employed at minimum
wage, $5.15 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address, so that I can
send you a form to complete and tell you where to report for work on
your first day. Taken aback, the man protests that he has neither a
computer nor an e-mail address. To this the MS manager replies,
"Well, then, that means that you virtually don't exist and can
therefore hardly expect to be employed. Stunned, the man leaves. Not
knowing where to turn and having only $10 in his wallet, he decides
to buy a 25 LB flat of tomatoes at the supermarket. Within less than
2 hours, he sells all the tomatoes individually at 100% profit.
Repeating the process several times more that day, he ends up with
almost $100 before going to sleep that night. And thus it dawns on
him that he could quite easily make a living selling tomatoes.
Getting up early every day and going to bed late, he multiplies his
profits quickly. After a short time he acquires a cart to transport
several dozen boxes of tomatoes, only to have to trade it in again
so that he can buy a pick-up truck to support his expanding
business. By the end of the second year, he is the owner of a fleet
of pick-up trucks and manages a staff of a hundred former unemployed
people, all selling tomatoes. Planning for the future of his wife
and children, he decides to buy some life insurance. Consulting with
an insurance adviser, he picks an Insurance plan to fit his new
circumstances. At the end of the telephone conversation, the adviser
asks him for his e-mail address in order to send the final documents
electronically. When the man replies that he has no e-mail, the
adviser is stunned, "What, you don't have e-mail? How on earth
have you managed to amass such wealth without the Internet, e-mail
and e-commerce? Just imagine where you would be now, if you had been
connected to the Internet from the very start!" After a moment
of thought, the tomato millionaire replied, "Why, of course! I
would be a floor cleaner at AOL or Microsoft!" ;;;Moral of
this story: ;;; 1. The Internet, e-mail and e-commerce do not need
to rule your life. 2. If you don't have e-mail, but work hard, you
can still become a millionaire. 3. Because you got this story via e-
mail, you're probably closer to becoming a janitor than you are to
becoming a millionaire. 4. If you do have a computer and e-mail, you
have already been taken to the cleaners by AOL and Microsoft. I
would like to see Corporate America stop laying off and firing their
workers for making more money and saving themselves from becoming
the next EMRON. Corporate America needs to work together, especially
AOL & Microsoft. Take the best of the best designs and work on
them together. Otherwise, a new and smaller company will win favor
over the computer user and job security at AOL & Microsoft will
become reality... I have never used the Netscape browser that much,
but have used the MSN browser a lot. The truth is I like what I've
used and know best MSN. I don't like Netscape a change I would have
to learn new things. My world is very busy. Therefore, say "I
do" and get hitched the Netscape and MSN browser. It should be
required that this integrated browser be in compliant to, none
other, a window type operating system. I believe AOL will be the
first to disagree and Microsoft will agree. It is time for some
attitude adjustments from AOL. Microsoft has been a good sport, and
I'm sure Bill Gates will do what best for science and technology. We
all want a logical world to live in and work in. Design out all
complexities by taking the extra time to simplify. Give the working
people sense of job security, and will be more open to simple
designs they can share with management.
MTC-00021797
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:57am
Subject: AOL accusations
As a subscriber to AOL I must submit comments in defense of
Microsoft. For the last several versions, certainly AOL6.0 and 7.0
their Netscape browser has been conspicuously absent from the scene.
Earlier versions queried the user as to which browser they wished to
use-Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape. Also Netscape
appeared as an icon on the desktop. The last two AOL versions do not
offer the choice. As a result I end up using Internet Explorer, as
it is available with the basic Windows package. It is a fine product
and I am happy with it. There are numerous aspects of AOL that I and
many others do not like and products from Microsoft would serve the
user better if AOL would offer the option, such as a decent word
processor. It seems strange that AOL would file a suit when they
fail to promote their product. Or is this a ploy to serve a basis
for suit against Microsoft. The question you, DoJ, should be
addressing is what the benefit is to the consumer not wining
companies that are in search of a quick buck for themselves and
their attorneys! Maybe that's too much to ask a government agency.
Peter J. Ludlow
MTC-00021798
From: Mike Choy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed settlement. Microsoft has clearly
engaged in anti-competitive behavior for many years and the remedy
should be more than just a slap on the wrist.
Thank you.
Michael Choy
Stanford, CA
MTC-00021799
From: Brian Riel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ authorities, All through this long and drawn out court
action involving Microsoft and their business practices, I must say,
I have been thoroughly and utterly appalled at the way in which it
has been used to do one thing. Bring down Microsoft. Period. It
makes me ashamed of the way this countries judicial system has been
used and abused to further the ends of Microsoft's direct
competitors. No one is denying that Microsoft's strategies aren't
aggressive in the market place, but did they do something illegal
that warranted this crusade to bring them down. NO. I don't think so
for a minute. We, the people, created and molded the economic
structure that a retailer has to contend with. From childhood on up,
we learn about this arena... look for the best bargain, get the most
for your money, "shopping" is the catch word of our free
enterprise. The american public as consumers are demanding and
voracious in their expectations of retailers to "give"
them reason to give them their business. It is this consumer
attitude that is driving this whole issue.
You ask a grandparent, or better yet, a great-grandparent, about
the market place in their day. You'll hear about quality products,
good service, friendly, neighborly relations, and something that is
all but extinct now, loyalty. Even I can remember a time when my dad
would do business with one retail establishment, and continue to do
so as long as they gave him a fair and honest deal.... out of
loyalty. Many consumers did the same. This generation has been
taught loyalty to one thing...getting the MOST for their money.
Never mind if the offer of a retailer IS a quality product, if it
MEETS their needs, or is at a FAIR price. They want "Added
Value", and they "shop" for it. Literally, pitting
retailer against retailer to "battle" for their
patronage.
I can give you a very distinct example. Look at the photocopier/
office equipment industry. I entered it as service technician in
"89. At that time, sales was the bread-winning component of
the business. Sales made a very tidy revenue, while service was much
a necessary by-product of selling. In a very competitive market, the
customers
[[Page 27085]]
demanding more to give their business, each company dropped sales
prices to beat out their competitors. Only problem is, did consumers
stop at a "fair" price? No way. They knew the position
they had the retailers in, and squeezed. By about "92, office
equipment companies were selling equipment for almost no profit. So,
what to do? The customer's appetite for "added value"
didn't stop or wane. Service rates and quality picked up the baton.
Companies started offering "competitive" rates for
service, and that worked. For a while. A company would sell.,
place., a copier, or very little profit, and look to service to make
the revenue. But, once again, the consumers didn't relent. More.
More. Until, the companies are now selling, and servicing machines
for relatively so little that they barely stay in business. Why do I
go to length to describe this? Because, like all retailers, this is
the arena in which Microsoft deals. Just like everybody else in
business today. Including, Sun, Oracle, AOL, and the rest. What did
Microsoft do? They gave "added value" to the customer.
NO different than any other retailer has, and is, doing. When you go
to the grocery store, and buy a bottle of soda, and it is offered at
"buy one, get one free". They gave you something more,
something free, to entice you to buy. When the car dealer,
"throws in" an option, say, sporty wheels, or the racier
interior, at no extra cost, to entice you to buy. So, Microsoft gave
customers something extra, at no extra cost, a browser, to entice
them to buy.
HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?! For crying out loud, there is a tire
store retailer who gives the customer $100 in free BEEF to get their
business. Microsoft is larger, and more successful than a lot of
companies.... yes. That is not a crime. Microsoft could afford to do
it. That is not a crime. No doubt, it had the desired affect. It
drew customers. The competitors, then, had a choice. Like any other
retailer, in any other industry, they needed to innovate, strive to
find ways to make their product more appealing than Microsoft's. Or,
not. No doubt, it is a hard position to be in. Exactly, like my
illustration of the copier industry. Microsoft didn't create the
consumer/retail game, but like all others, they learned to play in
it. But now, the competitors found a third choice. To use the
judicial system to do something they were failing to do in the
market place. Beat Microsoft. I could go on. But, enough.
The retail arena Microsoft, and all other companies, deal in
every day is not an easy, lackadaisical one. It is very competitive
to say the least. Microsoft did nothing that no one else is not
doing. The main difference may just be that Microsoft is larger than
many, and so was more effective because of it. But, being
successful, and growing, is what the american dream is all about.
What? Is there now a limit put on it? Oh, you have grown enough
now...stop and don't do it anymore..... Nothing Microsoft did, is
anywhere near deserving harsh judgement, or much less, anything on
the scale of "breaking them up". Get these competitors
out of the courtrooms, and send them back to their drawing rooms. If
they spent more time there. Maybe. Just maybe. They might
"make" or "sell" their products better, and
win in the marketplace that way.... Gain back the dignity of our
Judicial system. Stop catering and listening to biased, vengeful
retailers with less than honorable agendas! Thank you. Brian Riel
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click
Here
MTC-00021800
From: [email protected]. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:53am
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,
Diane Calabrese
704 Massena Ave.
Rome, NY 13440-2651
MTC-00021801
From: Eli Geller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This would definitely be a horrible situation.
Eli Geller
49 Elm St. #2 Somerville, MA 02143
MTC-00021802
From: nhrain@bellsouth. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
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,
Neal Rainwater
1725 Country Way
Gainesville, GA 30501-1432
MTC-00021803
From: DavisD58@hotmail. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:53am
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,
Debbie Davis
835 Sievers Way
Dixon, CA 95620-3734
MTC-00021804
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54am
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,
Sharlene Cartier
58 W. Grand View Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006-1515
MTC-00021805
From: Kenneth R. Brownsberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. First, I
whole-heartily agree with the long list of problems with the
settlement which have been identified by Mr. Dan Kegel. Mr. Kegel's
analysis of the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is on the Web at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. In particular, I agree
that as written the PFJ, ? Contains misleading and
[[Page 27086]]
overly narrow definitions and provisions, ? Fails to prohibit
anticompetitive license terms currently used by Microsoft, ? Fails
to prohibit intentional incompatibilities historically used by
Microsoft, ? Fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards
OEMs, and ? Appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
Second, I believe the settlement will actually help increase
Microsoft's monopolistic dominance in the desktop Operating System
environment-by actively placing a great many additional
Microsoft platforms into the education field, one of the few areas
where Microsoft does not currently maintain an overpowering
monopoly. Allowing Microsoft to flood the education field with
copies of their software is not a significant, punitive
measure-as the real dollar cost to Microsoft will be only a
small portion of the claimed "market value" of this
software, and more importantly, it will only serve to solidify
Microsoft's market stronghold-making it that much harder to
curb the anticompetitive practices that brought about the lawsuit in
the first place! In summary, I feel that the Proposed Final Judgment
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to
continue and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not
be adopted without substantial revision to address these issues.
Sincerely,
Dr. Kenneth R. Brownsberger
Software and Operations Scientist Center for Astrophysics and
Space Astronomy
Campus Box 593
University of Colorado-Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309-0593
MTC-00021806
From: Stu Cameron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
If you are working on the case with Microsoft, please don't let
AOL blur your vision. AOL bought Netscape when it was going down the
tubes..they knew what they were getting into. AOL just wants to hurt
Microsoft so they can step in, they are trying to crush Microsoft
through the courts and not competition. Because AOL has inferior
products and cannot overcome Microsoft in any other way.
William Cameron
MTC-00021807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a citizen of the United States, voter and avid computer user
I strenuously object to the DOJ settlement in the Microsoft anti
trust case. Microsoft has done considerable harm in the market place
because of their business practices, further, because it has used
it's monopoly status it has stifled competition and innovation.
Their software really is awful and you guys (and gals) are weenies
for buckling under.
Sincerely,
Victor Medina
MTC-00021808
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56am
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,
Roy Brooks
27752 E. 340 Rd,
Big Cabin, OK 74332-9801
MTC-00021809
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Microsoft should be praised for the work it has done in this
great country. Look at the taxes and contributions it pays. What
other country would jump all over them with lawsuits and keep
knocking them down? Please drop all lawsuits and let them get along
with the work that they do best--the American way.
Thank you,
Norm Blackburn,
Tenino, WA.
MTC-00021810
From: shane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see that is forwarded to the Offices of the states
attornys general involved in the case. Microsoft is a dishonest
company, and we should all think long and hard before doing business
with them. From "DOS ain't done "till Lotus won't
run", to the stealing of Stac's patented algorithms in order
to run them out of business, to putting code in the Windows 3.1 beta
to detect if it was being run under anything other than MS-DOS and
spit out an error message in order to drive a competitor out of
business, to marking the opening of a new e-greeting card service by
releasing a version of Outlook that sorted Blue Mountain e-greeting
cards into the trash so users never saw them, they have shown they
are untrustworthy. They also claim to have invented in-house every
technology which they have copied from somewhere else, have payed
people to write "independent" pro-Microsoft opinions to
editors of newspapers and magazines and to Usenet, have created
phoney "grassroots" groups (including
"members" from non-existent towns and real but deceased
people) to push for dropping the anti-trust case, and have used the
Business Software Alliance as a club to force copyright-infringing
companies to switch all their Novell software to NT. They continue
to pay computer science professors to exclusively teach Microsoft
tools, fake evidence in a court of law, forbid OEM customers of
Windows from buying and loading another company's third party
software under threat of losing their Windows license (Netscape
specifically), forbid OEM customers from developing competing
software under threat of losing their Windows license (IBM OS/2, and
HP OpenMail specifically), lay out plans to defeat hobbyist software
by noting that it generally complies with accepted Internet
standards so Microsoft can break these standards to prevent hobbyist
software from inter operating with theirs. They charge OEMs the cost
of a Windows license for each processor shipped, and once shipped a
version of Kerberos that refuses to log into any but a Microsoft
Kerberos implementation. They create misleading "Can Your Palm
Do That?" ads referring to features that Palms have by default
and are costly add-ons to WinCE devices, and appended an
advertisement written in the first person (I recently..) to MSN
users" outgoing email's without their knowledge. They have
also required that corporations purchasing computers with Windows
licenses must purchase additional licenses to reinstall these same
computers with the corporate standard desktop, as well claiming that
the default install of NT 3.51 met C-2 security standards when the
rating is only made for a single physical installation and the
installation which earned the rating had no network connection or
removable media. They later claimed that NT4 met C-2 standards when
it had not been tested simply because they had said NT3 met the
standards. In the past they claimed that you do not need a trained
network administrator to run a Windows-based network, claimed that
DOS 6.0 was completely stable and didn't crash like DOS 5.0, claimed
that Windows 95 was completely stable and didn't crash like DOS 6
and Windows 3.1, claimed that Windows 98 was completely stable and
didn't crash like Windows 95, claimed XP is secure despite enabling
by default a known security hole. Microsoft has shown itself to be
untrustworthy. Over and over again. But then you know that, because
Bill Gates lied under oath, to a judge, and submitted faked video as
court evidence. Microsoft does not need to fined. Nor do they need
to be split into 2 or more companies. They need to be abolished,
destroyed, disbanded and the major executives banned from working in
the tech sector until after 2025. Your "settlement" is a
joke and travesty. Pretend you are representing the people long
enough to finish this case.-"There won't be anything we
won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way
to go."-Bill Gates.
MTC-00021811
From: whlycw@foxinternet. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
[[Page 27087]]
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,
Joseph James
3442 SW 111th St.
Seattle, WA 98146-1765
MTC-00021812
From: Laury D. Coultas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:00pm
Subject: Monopoly
We truly need more choices, as Microsoft is continually shoving
their products down our throats by constantly coming out with
"newer" products that you must upgrade to, just to stay
"current". Window 98 is enough for the home
user..Windows 2000 is enough for a road warrior, Windows XP is too
much...yet you cannot buy a new system without getting XP, which is
not an improvement, it just makes more money and gives more control
to Microsoft. Don't let Microsoft monopolize the online access and
Internet too!
Laury D. Coultas
MTC-00021813
From: gobinbj@ hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:57am
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,
Betty Jean Gobin
713 S Spring
Nevada, MO 64772-3006
MTC-00021814
From: rcndonna@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56am
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,
Roy Brooks
27752 E. 340 Rd,
Big Cabin, OK 74332-9801
MTC-00021815
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56am
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,
VA 22902-5845
MTC-00021816
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a concerned citizen and take exception the suit filed by
AOL against Microsoft. I believe its easy to cry foul when you get
beat at your own game. Remember Netscape was given away free for
many years and I heard no protest then. Lets make the doj read Ann
Rands "Atlas Shrugged" and take a lesson.
Sincerely,
[email protected]
MTC-00021817
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55am
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,
Louis Croce
115 W. Montgomery Avenue
Ardmore, PA 19003-1509
MTC-00021818
From: fstoppa@ bellsouth.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55am
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,
Frank Stoppa
8044 Swamp Flower Dr. E.
Jacksonville, FL 32244-6160
MTC-00021819
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:57am
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
[[Page 27088]]
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Caldwell
430 Diversey Parkway
Apartment 302 Chicago, IL 60614
MTC-00021820
From: S(038)K
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We use both Netscape and Microsoft. We find the MS programs to
be much more user friendly. and we wish this would be over and let
Microsoft go on down the road and invent more great products that we
didn't know we needed, but find indispensable once available. It's
time for this to be over. thank you,
Taxpayer Karen Frantzen
Crossville, TN 38572
MTC-00021821
From: Marcello Missiroli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No, don't do it this way!
Marcello Missiroli (1) [email protected]
MTC-00021822
From: Philip Smith..Rus..ADZOOX
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A very bad idea to do nothing less than break Microsoft into
four companies. Hardware Gaming Internet Software A straight cash
settlement of 1 billion directly divided equally to all states for
the purchase of technology upgrades that do not exclude Linux, Sun,
Macintosh.
MTC-00021823
From: Bevens, Len
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
The settlement achieved between Microsoft, the Department of
Justice, and a bipartisan group of State Attorneys General in the
original antitrust case against Microsoft is in the interest of
consumers and the high-tech industry. I ask that it be accepted by
the Court. At a specific level the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
("RPFJ"), represents over 5 weeks of dialogue between
Microsoft, the United States, and the plaintiff States undertaken at
Court's own instruction that the parties "steadfast in their
efforts to reach a mutually agreeable resolution." According
to neutral experts, this effort culminated in a RPFJ that goes
considerably further than the Court of Appeals" decision could
be reasonably said to warrant. For example, the RPFJ offers relief
on the issue of "client-server interoperability", which
was not addressed either at trial or by the Court of Appeals. At a
general level, continuing litigation in this case or similar ones,
such as that filed by AOL on Tuesday, January 22, are a detriment to
consumers and the high-tech industry because they require that
massive resources be diverted from market place competition and
cooperation. It is engagement in these two situations that advances
the rich benefits technology brings to our lives both at home and
work. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you or to
respond to your inquiries. I may be reached by phone at work: (513)
745-2157 or home: (513) 941-3680 or by e-mail:
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Leonard W. Bevens
MTC-00021824
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We hope that the settlement can go through. We don't believe
that any further litigation is in our best interest, i.e. the
interest of the consumer. Microsoft has given us excellent products.
Doris & John Vail
[email protected]
MTC-00021825
From: Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I have been following the Microsoft hearings for the past few
years and the proposed settlement would do nothing to curve the
activities of the software giant. In fact, parts of the proposed
settlement would actually help Microsoft ensure their market
dominance. This is neither fair to competition or in the interest of
the antitrust laws. Microsoft has proven time and time again that
they cannot conduct themselves in a law-abiding and ethical manner,
for which they must be punished for. They need to realize that they
cannnot do anything they wish because they own the largest market
share. There are several alternative operating systems that millions
of people use everyday which deserve to be used with full confidence
that they will work with the rest of the computing world. If
Microsoft had their way everyone would be forced to use their
products without being given a choice. One example of this is their
recent lobbying to get the Music industry to use the Microsoft Media
Player file format for all audio CDs. This would ensure everyone who
buys a CD would install the Media Player application on their
computer, forcing out competing products. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with the current AIFF audio file format that CDs come
in today, which is an open format that hundreds of applications
support, not a proprietary format that only Microsoft supports.
There are literally hundreds of cases like this where Microsoft uses
their market dominance to ensure their competition is unfairly
stifled. Please make Microsoft accountable for their illegal actions
and police them in the future, since they are obviously unable to do
it themselves.
Wade C
MTC-00021826
From: Glen (038) Karen Guenther
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I'm writing to say how appalled I am by the DoJ's proposed
settlement with Microsoft. As far as I know, all of the findings of
fact were upheld so why are you capitulating to Microsoft like
this?!? You act like the DoJ was the loser here, not Microsoft!
Haven't you paid ANY attention to what Microsoft has been doing with
Windows/XP and their ".Net" plans? They're working hard
to extend their monopoly and to shut out all other companies.
I recently upgraded my Internet Explorer browser to version 5.5
and I found even MORE examples of Microsoft promoting its monopoly.
I mis-keyed the web address for a website I was wanting to look at.
Instead of bringing up the old "Cannot find..." screen,
it took me to an MSN screen where I could search for the website I
was trying to find. I've never used MSN to look up websites before
so there's no reason why IE 5.5 should have taken me there.
This is just another way that Microsoft is trying to extend
their monopoly by forcing everyone on the Internet to use their
services. Windows/XP is even worse. Microsoft is forcing people to
use drivers that THEY approve. How easy it is for Microsoft to
simply refuse to approve drivers for competing devices and services
(or to simply delay them for long periods of time to give themselves
a big advantage in time)! They should NOT be allowed to force only
using their approved drivers. Or, if there's a valid reason why only
approved drivers can be used, there should be an independent group
that provides this approval but, no, we've got the fox guarding the
henhouse here! And you're just encouraging them by giving them this
weak slap on the wrist. Now that they know that they have nothing to
fear from the DoJ, I'm worried about what Microsoft will do to
extend their monopoly next!
I tend to think that even the opposing states" proposed
remedies to the Microsoft settlement don't go far enough. Still,
it's MUCH better than the DoJ's proposal. I think that the opposing
states" remedies should be considered the absolute minimum
agreement that should be considered! I still wouldn't be happy with
it but at least it wouldn't stink to high heaven like the DoJ's
capitulation does. You'll ignore this note, just like you'll ignore
all of the other notes that disagree with your subservience to
Microsoft, but I had to at least voice my opinion.
I guess the thing that disappoints me the most about this is
that I've voted for Attorney General Ashcroft in every election
where I COULD vote for him. I've met him and campaigned for him in a
few different elections. I was thrilled when he was nominated for
Attorney General, all the way up until I heard about the DoJ's
capitulation to Microsoft. Maybe he isn't the person who is making
all of these decisions about giving in to Microsoft but I know that
he could right this wrong if he chose to do so. I know that he's a
man of integrity so I am totally baffled why he would let Microsoft
get away with electronic murder (of Netscape) here. There are
certainly other matters which are more important than this.
Nevertheless, this is important enough to me that if this proposed
[[Page 27089]]
settlement gets enacted as is then I'll never be able to vote for
Governor/Senator/Attorney General Ashcroft again with a clear
conscience and will have to consider campaigning for his opponents.
I'm so disappointed in him...
Sincerely and sadly,
Glen Guenther
715 S. 4th Street St.
Charles, MO 63301
(636) 946-8325
MTC-00021827
From: Jonathan McKamey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe that this settelment is in the best interest of
the American people. All evidence indicates that Microsoft has taken
advantage of it's position of power to extend it's monopoly, and has
competed unfairly in the market of both Operation System and Web
Browser. I am sure that you are recieving thousands of such e-mails,
so i will not ramble on any further. Thank you. pity this busy
monster manunkind not... e.e.cummings
-Jon McKamey
MTC-00021828
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:57am
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,
Donna Brooks
27752 E. 340 Rd,
Big Cabin, OK 74332-9801
MTC-00021829
From: Maurice H. Lamothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree with the settlement offers onMicrosoft!
Maurice H. Lamothe
8008 Cardigan Way
Shreveport LA 71129-4901
MTC-00021830
From: Scott-J-Golightly@ Keane.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This letter is in response to the proposed settlement between
Microsoft andthe United States Government and 9 states.
After reading the terms of the proposed settlement I believe
that the settlement will provide for a fair and equitable manner in
ensuring that Microsoft does not further abuse its market power but
still allowing OEMs, ISVs and others the information that they need
to work with Microsoft products.
As a professional software developer I would like to see a
speedy resolution to the case against Microsoft so that I can work
without fear of changes to the underlying operating system which my
code is dependent upon.
Scott Golightly
Senior Principal Consultant-Keane, Inc.
Scott-J- [email protected]
801.576.8800
MTC-00021831
From: Tucker, Chad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the
Department of Justice's antitrust case against Microsoft.
As a professional economist, I can state unequivocally that the
products manufactured by the Microsoft corporation contribute
immensely to my productivity and to the productivity of my
coworkers. I use Microsoft software everyday, and the forecasts and
reports I produce are much better off as a result. None of the
software in competition with Microsoft's Office Suite, and none of
the operating systems in competition with Microsoft's Windows, are
capable of achieving the results that I must have in order to
satisfy my company's clients.
As a professional economist, I can also state unequivocally that
the antitrust laws are based upon a profound misunderstanding of the
factors that govern the economy. Unless the government grants a
monopoly to a corporation, that corporation cannot become a
monopoly. Microsoft's large market share is not due to any
"restraint of trade" or anything else of which the DoJ
is accusing it, but rather it is due to its superior products.
Microsoft sells many copies of its software because consumers of
software recognize that its products are worth buying, and for no
other reason. The DoJ suit threatens to punish Microsoft for no
reason other than because Microsoft excels at giving its customers
what they want. Its customers will be hurt to precisely the same
extent as Microsoft itself if antitrust action is taken against it.
And, based on my knowledge as a professional economist, I can
state unequivocally that the Microsoft antitrust suit is odious in
another area: morality. The products produced by Microsoft, and the
company itself, are the rightful property of its shareholders and of
no one else. The Department of Justice has no right to abrogate the
rights of the owners of the Microsoft corporation in demanding that
it change its products or be split into separate companies. That the
products of a man's mind (in this case, Bill Gates" and
Microsoft's programmers" minds) are rightfully his, is not
only the very basis of American society; it is the exclusive basis
of a just and moral society. The DoJ lawsuit against Microsoft
undermines the most fundamental undergirdings of American
capitalism, and it is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever
produced anything of value.
And thus, as a professional economist, I urge you to reconsider
your antitrust case against Microsoft. Don't punish Bill Gates for
having created something of great value to the vast majority of
computer users; rather, commend him for a job well done.
Sincerely,
Chad Tucker
[email protected]
1200 G Street, NW 10th floor
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 383-2043
MTC-00021832
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The antitrust case against Microsoft has been resolved, and I
want to give my support to this agreement. It has gone on far too
long, and should never have happened in the first place. I cannot
believe Microsoft had a suit brought against them. Bill Gates,
through Microsoft, has done so much for this country. Microsoft has
provided thousands of jobs directly, and correspondingly, auxiliary
jobs. Our government is trying to find ways to rebound from the
recession, yet punishes the one company that is the major engine of
our economy. Further, competitors of Microsoft, not consumers,
instigated this suit. I could go on and on, but I want to reiterate
my support of this agreement so we can get back to business.
Microsoft has also agreed to a great many demands of the Department
of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well beyond
the products and procedures that were actually at issue in the
original suit. Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use
by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to
Windows" operating system products-a first in an
antitrust settlement. Give your approval to this agreement. It is
time to go forward and quit second-guessing judicial decisions.
Sincerely,
Viola Abraham
10005 Humphrey Road
Cincinnati, OH 45242
MTC-00021833
From: Fred L. Drake, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement with Microsoft does not solve the
problems which caused the suit to be brought. The settlement should
not be made.
[[Page 27090]]
Fred
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
MTC-00021834
From: Linda Welshons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01pm
Subject: Goose and Golden Egg
Please, please, please settle this destructive lawsuit against
Microsoft! They are one of the United States" strongest
companies and exporters into the international market. Our economy
needs them and our government needs the taxes that they and their
employees pay, Let us not kill the goose that lays the golden egg!
Linda Welshons
MTC-00021835
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to object to the proposed Microsoft settlement. To
date, Microsoft has used unfair and illegal tactics to garner the
vast market share of several software arenas, including operating
systems, web browsers, and office software. In doing so, they have
made their products the de facto standard in these areas. The
proposed settlement does nothing to remedy these problems. In fact,
by not forcing full sharing of APIs, file formats, and other key
information, the settlement will further solidy Microsoft's monopoly
on the industry. I strongly recommend that the settlement as outline
NOT be accepted, and an alternative found that will "level the
playing field".
MTC-00021836
From: Roger Haler
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roger Haler
141 Fowler Drive
Leesburg, GA 31763-5013
January 24, 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,
Roger L. Haler
MTC-00021837
From: Eric Schatzberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed
settlement agreement to the antitrust action by the Department of
Justice against the Microsoft Corporation. This agreement completely
fails to prevent the strengthening of Microsoft's monopoly in
software, let alone reduce it.
Microsoft's dominance of the operating system market is a
perfect example of market failure resulting from path dependence
effects and the economics of increasing returns, a phenomenon whose
significance has been explained by the economist W. Brian Arthur.
Microsoft clearly owes its market dominance to these effects, and
not to the quality of its products, which are widely criticized by
independent software experts.
Microsoft's interests are simply not identical with those of
computer users. Users need simple, user-friendly software that does
not require professional instruction and hours of frustration to
master. Microsoft, in contrast, produces bloated, complicated,
expensive and buggy software. Take word processing, for example.
While the price/performance ratio of computer hardware has fallen by
more than an order of magnitude in the past ten years, Microsoft
Word has maintained its high price. I use a version of Word last
updated in 1992, as well as the current version. Nine years of
innovation have failed to improve usability, while adding a host of
secondary features irrelevant to 90 percent of Word users. If there
had been real competition in word processing software, I'm convinced
that price would have decreased and usability would have increased.
The economic consequences of this market failure are tremendous.
Numerous studies have documented the failure of information
technologies to increase productivity in any degree close to their
potential. It is very difficult to quantify the economic losses
caused by bad software, but every computer user knows the wasted
hours spent getting such software to work properly. The original
remedy, breaking up Microsoft into separate companies, at least
would add some competition back into the software industry.
Sincerely,
Eric Schatzberg
Associate Professor
Department of the History of Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
(608) 262-3973; fax: (608) 262-3984
MTC-00021838
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:03pm
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,
Hugh N. Bodey
451 Taylor Street
Myrtle Creek, OR 97457-9733
MTC-00021839
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01pm
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,
larry waite
333 layfield road
Perkiomenville, PA 18074
MTC-00021840
From: David Medinets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I want make my opinion known about the
proposed Microsoft settlement. I feel that Microsoft has acted very
much like a monopoly used predatory tactics against competitors. In
fact, this behavior continues today.
Please impose monetary fines (used to provide unfettered funds
to schools) instead of allowing Microsoft to supply
"free" software which will only serve to further their
market share.
[[Page 27091]]
thank you.
David Medinets,
Consultant, http://www.codebits.com
World-Renowned Nested Tree Modeler
MTC-00021841
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is bad for the country and the
software industry.
Dear Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
The current settlement with Microsoft is unacceptable. The
current proposed settlement would strengthen Microsoft's monopoly
and that is in spite of the fact that Microsoft has been found
GUILTY of maintaining its operating system monopoly in violation of
section 2 of the Sherman Act. I would suggest at least the follow
penalties for Microsoft as proposed by Dennis E. Powell in the
article "Speak Now or Ever After ... Regret Your
Silence". "Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of
Microsoft's monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost
options in the purchase of new computers, so that the user who does
not wish to purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that
for the price differential between a new computer with Microsoft
software and one without, a computer seller must offer the software
without the computer (which would prevent computer makers from
saying that the difference in price is only a few dollars). Only
then could competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
"hooks" that allow other parties to write applications
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the
proposed settlement.
Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
I 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."
MTC-00021842
From: Joseph Majeske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having read about the proposed settlement, I must say that I am
not in favor of it in its current form. Please consider this a vote
against the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a
settlement that is more favorable to consumers, Microsoft's
competitors, and the industry as a whole.
Thank you,
Joseph Majeske
100 S. 4th Avenue
Highland Park, NJ 08904
MTC-00021843
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:01pm
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,
V.Louise diehl.
203 S.Spruce St.
Liltitz-Lancaster, PA 17543-2315
MTC-00021844
From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement appears to be written by Microsoft FOR
Microsoft. Microsoft has killed off Netscape, Wordperfect, and many
other companies. I think the settlement needs to be much tougher.
Mike Hampton
MTC-00021845
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The recent suit by AOL regarding Netscape is a travesty. AOL
purchased Nestscape at a very low cost, lwith full knowledge that
Microsoft had the dominant position for a browser.
This move by AOL, on top of the cases being presented by the
nine states that have not agreed with the settlement between the U.
S. Government and the other states, is just another example of the
bad faith that these parties have brought to the attempt to reach a
fair and reasonable settlement. It is not in the best interests of
the people of the world to prolong this debacle. Micorsoft has been
a stabilizing force which allowed the entire world to communicate in
a common language. The integration of the Microsoft Browser into
Windows is a basic integration tool for the user. Much more effort
is needed by the computer user to use Netscape in conjunction with
text programs and spreadsheets.
The entire case of the dissenting nine states, as published in
the newspapers is clearly an attempt to gain competitive advantage
for companies with strong political ties in the dissenting states.
I am neither a microsoft employee, nor am I a Microsoft
stockholder.
Bernard E. Nelson
MTC-00021846
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:02pm
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,
David Pflum
110 w. bertrand
St. Marys, KS 66536
MTC-00021847
From: Mord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen it boggles my mind that the DoJ can even
think that the current proposed settlement with regards to
Microsoft's illegal use of a monopoly has even a chance at
terminating that illegal monopoly and denying the defendents the
illegaly acquired market dominance that they have obtained. This
proposal doesn't even take any direcft measures to reduce the
Applications Barrier to entry faced by any new entrant into the
markets that Microsoft has already monopolized.
The court of appeals confirmed that Microsoft has a monopoly on
x86 based PC OS's, and that the company's market position is
protected by a serious barrier to entry, as well as that Microsoft
was liable under the Sherman Act for maintaining it's monopoly via
licensing restrictions placed on OEM's IAP's, ISV's and Apple
Computer (re: JVM.) From these practices, licensing, etc Microsoft
managed to strengthen the barrier to entry into its markets and
weakened its competition (those that weren't put out of business.)
Doesn't the judgement have to find a direct way to reduce those
barriers to entry and increase competition to be meaningful?
[[Page 27092]]
Some examples of problems with the PFJ.
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. Basically this lets
Microsoft impose a PC tax on everybody who buys computers from large
OEM's since no large OEM can afford to ship all their machines
without windows on it.
Section III.B allows Microsoft to do anything they want to
smaller OEM's. Don't the small OEM's deserve the same protection as
the 20 largest? Is there something special about being 20th vs 21st?
This section must give the same protection to all OEM's regardless
of size. Also this section would allow Microsoft to continue
leveraging its monopoly by offering "Market Development
Allowances" (basically a discount) to OEM's based on the
number of copies of X product sold by that OEM.
Sections III.F and III.G don't put an end to several of
Microsoft's exclusionary practices towards ISV's. The Microsoft
Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA doesn't allow it to be
distributed with 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 or similar licensing or
distribution models. The EULA goes on to list anything licensed
under GPL, LGPL, Artistic License, Mozilla Public License, Netscape
Public License, Sun Community Source Public License. Should
Microsoft be able to dictate that anyone who uses this piece of
their software cannot also distribute other software? Almost every
Windows API is shipped as an add-on SDK with associated
redistributable components. Anything that wishes to use that API is
effectively banned by the EULA from utilizing any free software and
this penalizes all companies that chose to use Open Source as a
method to distribute their program. This also harms products like
Netscape 6 and StarOffice. On top of this the Microsoft Platform SDK
makes it illegal to run programs generated by Microsoft Visual C++
on a non Microsoft Windows-compatible operating system.
We should also regulate how Microsfot licenses its products to
non OEM's. This includes site licenses or "enterprises"
and "enterprise licensing" as well as end user consumer
licensing. Most of the "enterprise license" agreements
have a strong semblence to per-processor licenses which were
prohibited by the 1994 consent decree, in which Microsoft gets money
for every computer that could possible run a Microsoft OS not just
the ones that are running it. These agreements are anticompetitive
because they remove the financial incentive for individuals or
departments to run non Microsoft software since you already have to
pay for it. It's like insisting that everybody that has a car buy 4
Goodyear tires, even if you want to use somebody elses tires the
Goodyear tires are paid for and you have to pay for them. How many
people do you think would go buy the Pirelli tires then? The same is
true with these licenses. End user license issues can be shown from
MSNBC's NewsAlert software, which has a EULA which 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 3.1, Macintosh, etc.]. This makes it illegal to try running
the software under WINE for instnace which can run some windows
programs under Linux. Yet the EULA states that this is illegal,
hence the only legitimate way to use this software is to own a copy
of Microsoft Windows of some form- they mention Macintosh, yet
there isnt" a mac version of this software.)
Isn't this practice anticompetitive? Why has no court fully
examined information from the 1996 Caldera vs Microsoft antitrust
suit, which clearly showed that there was sufficient evidence that
Microsoft intentionally created incompatibilities in their Windows
3.1 product to discourage competition.
I think for the final judgement to be in the publics best
interest we need to have the following.
1) ALL Microsoft API's, software hooks, etc must be public, and
must be given to the public at least 6 months prior to release.
2) All Microsoft file formats must be also given to the public 6
months prior to use in a product.
3) All OEM's should be under the same restrictions, not just the
top 20.
4) All Microsoft software licensing must allow for the software
to be run on any validly licensed machine regardless of what OS is
running on it. If the machine can run the software it shouldn't be
prohibited from doing so by a EULA. Basically instead of Windows/
Microsoft OS shoudl be any Windows compatible OS.
5) Any "middleware" product should be replaceable by
another competing "middleware" product. The ability to
replace Java with Sun's Java is meaningless after .NET comes about.
We must be able to replace .NET with another competing middleware.
6) Windows should include ANY machine that uses any part of the
Win32 API (including X-Box, Pocket PC, Windows CE, etc.)
7) There must be an advance notice requirement with regard to
ISV's regarding middleware. As it stands Microsoft could simply
change the requirements just before the deadline and not inform the
ISV's.
8) Competitors must not be prohibited from using the API
documentation to build Microsoft compatible Operating Systems.
9) Microsoft must be required to list which software patents
protect the windows APIs if any. Non disclosure on said patents
should be considered the same as the granting of the actual patent
to the public domain.
10) OEM's must be allowed to ship machines in any number with
any OS on them without fear of retaliatory pricing on the part of
Microsoft.
11) Microsoft discounts should not allow monopoly leveraging in
any way shape or form. In other words any discount Microsoft chooses
to offer must only be linked to the product being bought, and must
be offered to any and every OEM.
12) There must be an active and effective enforcement mechanism
(one that will also make Microsoft want to fix their problems.) And
no a fine of a million dollars a day isn't sufficient. That would be
like fining Michael Jordan a dollar a day because of his Nike
affiliation. Do you think he'd care about the dollar? Also there
must be an effective monitoring system put into place to observe
Microsoft's behavior, review all license agreements, review all OEM
agreements, etc.
These things are necessary to protect the consumer. Real
remedies must be implemented on a company that has blatantly broken
the law. Real insurances must be made that they cannot continue to
break the law.
Scott Francis
1812 Herald Ln
Murfreesboro, TN
37130
MTC-00021848
From: Richard Cacciato
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I am a firm believer in free enterprise, but abuses of the
system simply don't further free enterprise. Microsoft has engaged
in tactics which are restrictive of markets and are bad for
competition. As a principal in a web development firm, I have
watched initiative after initiative which Microsoft has promoted as
"progress" which have resulted in customers having less
choice and being committed to inferior software and solutions. Its
latest attempts, .NET and Passport, threaten to undermine the open
standards of the web which have made it such a successful
communications medium. .NET and Passport are closed technologies
which, like EDI in the past, will restrict information flow in a
costly and non-productive manner.
I urge you to reject the proposed Microsoft settlement.
Thank you.
Richard Cacciato
Blue Iceberg LLC
Website Development Strategic Marketing
Business Solutions
http://www.blue-iceberg.com
Tel: 212.413.9226 Fax: 212.413.9201
MTC-00021849
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:04pm
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
[[Page 27093]]
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,
Roseanne Jacobsen
53 Circle Drive
Burgettstown, PA 15021
MTC-00021850
From: Dan Lipofsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe that the proposed settlement agreement in the
Microsoft antitrust case is insufficient. It does not go far enough
to punish Microsoft for its past violations nor does it provide
sufficient protection against future violations. The donations to
schools is actually the worst part because it gives microsoft a tool
to increase its market share and thus become a worse monopoly.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Daniel Lipofsky
San Rafael, CA 94903
MTC-00021851
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The MS settlement is a frustrating one. Why should one company
be allowed to so totally control the computer world? The settlement
simply adds what amounts to a government approval of monopoly, and
engenders the horrific marketing and sales schemes that we see
Microsoft so blatently push as of late.
As a US citizen, I am more than disappointed with our judicial
system in this regard.
Roger A. Pierson
MTC-00021852
From: Richard Tennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sirs,
I do not believe that the current settlement terms put forth by
the DOJ will be effective in correcting the monopoly abuses which
Microsoft has committed. Please reconsider this important matter.
Thank You,
Richard Tennis
San Antonio, TX
MTC-00021853
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:04pm
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,
Paula Waggener
2950 E. Marshall St.
Charleston, MO 63834
MTC-00021854
From: John Folk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I feel the settlement regarding this case is much too lenient.
It still allows for the preservation of the company's monoplization
tactics. This was not the purpose of the suit. I feel ashamed to be
living in a country where a large company's monopolistic market hold
and tactics are considered outside the laws that affect all other
companies. If the government cannot reign in this beast, then who
can?
By not punishing this behemoth with more than what amounts to
the court costs, there is no real punishment. Please reconsider your
decisions before we are pledging allegiance to a flag with a
Microsoft logo in each corner.
Signed,
John Folk
MTC-00021855
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:07pm
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,
Wanda Andrako
1970 Albion Rd.
Midlothian, VA 23113-4147
MTC-00021856
From: JB Bock
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
The Proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft does not
adequately address their monopolistic behavior. It does not stop
them from "bolting" their applications as part of their
software bundle, it does not require them to be penalized for their
past monopolistic behavior and it does not offer a break-up or
convincing regulation to stop their monopolistic behavior. A
regulation team with 1/2 of the team represented by Microsoft is not
going to sway their past behavior.
As someone who is involved in the technology industry and very
well one day could be looking to start a company that competes with
Microsoft, the thought is rather daunting if Microsoft is not
permanently altered. Microsoft inherently is monopolistic in order
to maximize profits. It has the ability and willingness to crush its
competitors, quash America's entrepreneurial spirit and forever
change the landscape of the software industry.
Thank you for your time,
JB Bock
Somera Communications
PH: 805-681-3322 x323
FX: 805-681-3325
[email protected]
MTC-00021857
From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Come on, guys, this is obviously a ploy by AOL to stall the
settlement and keep Microsoft distracted from the core business.
Please do something to end this on-going and out of date court case
against Microsoft. I almost don't care what you do, just end it.
Thanks.
Stephen Quinn, Test Mgr
"The more I want to get something done, the less I call it
work."-R.
Bach
.NET Enterprise Server, SQL Business Intelligence
Office Phone: 425.703.5351, Cell Phone: 425.829.3727
MTC-00021858
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
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
[[Page 27094]]
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,
Kathleen Johnson
73-540 Woodward Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92211
MTC-00021859
From: Guthrie, John
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add my opinion to those you consider in light of
the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. It is my
belief that the settlement does not go far enough in its remedy in
terms of allowing for a competitive atmosphere in the desktop
software development arena. The settlement will pretty much allow
Microsoft to continue in it's business-as-usual, a practice that has
indeed been adjudged as monopolistic.
Thank you for your consideration.
john guthrie
senior software specialist
american institutes for research
[email protected]
202-298-2716
MTC-00021860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:05pm
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,
Lloyd Gish
12854 Hencher Rd.
De Soto, MO 63020
MTC-00021861
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
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.
Rosa soliz
Sincerely,
Rosa Soliz
9227 ridge town
SanAntonio, TX 78250
MTC-00021862
From: Vaughan Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I want to voice my deep
disappointment in the proposed Microsoft Settlement, as I believe it
is far insufficient penalty for the crimes committed by Microsoft
for so many years. As a computer software professional, I have seen
Microsoft operate with impunity in what appear to me to be clearly
unfair trade practices, that profoundly stifle innovation and the
benefits of competition, for 16 years. To see them now on the verge
of minimal punishment for one of these many practices, and after all
the work the DOJ has put into the case, is indeed deeply
disappointing. Please reconsider.
Thank you,
Vaughan Johnson
MTC-00021863
From: Ivan Thomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
Subject: Settlement comments
I find it ironic that a company which for over a decade crushes
every other company in it's way, mkes billions upon billions of
dollars for itself and it's founders, has destroyed any competition
in the computer industry to the point where there is now only one
major OS producer other than microsoft-that being Apple which
only has 3%-8% of the market share....so then there is
Microsoft...around 98% market share world wide....and they get a
slap on the wrist from the U.S. Government.....and we the people are
supposed to have faith int he system?
The lesson here that you have provided to the next generation is
that doing honest business will put you out of business....but doing
mean, hurtful, monopolistic business will get you everything. In
other words...if you are a crook and make $10 and only get fined
$1...then you are $9 ahead aren't you?
Ivan Thomson
769 Crescent Dr.
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Macintosh User-Ex Atari User, Ex-Commodore User, Ex-Amiga
User, Ex-Every other Computer system that used to exist prior to
Microsoft user
MTC-00021864
From: Peter M. Jansson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is not adequate
because it fails to remove from Microsoft the gains made from its
illegal activities, and it will be very difficult to implement, as
opposed to such a structural remedy as separating Microsoft's
browser development activities from the rest of the company (a
relatively simple remedy that would have a dramatic effect on the
competitive landscape). In the absence of such a strong remedy,
Microsoft will clearly continue on its path, even if adjusts a
little, and will damage consumer choice.
Peter M. Jansson 410 435 2200
MTC-00021865
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:07pm
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 Flint
P.O. Box 905
Danville, CA 94526-0905
MTC-00021866
From: Aaron Sago
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If Apple computer can create an application to run Linux
Applications, why can Linux not create an application to run Windows
applications. If you find for Microsoft in this case you must also
file anti-trust against Apple.
Aaron Sago
Director, Software Development
nuMethods, LLC
1000 Abernathy Road
Building 400, Suite 632
Atlanta, GA 30328
Phone: 770/730-3600
email: [email protected]
Business Phone: 770-730-3732
Mobile: 678-938-1237
MTC-00021867
From: REYECUELO7 @CYBERETRAILS.COM
[[Page 27095]]
@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:07pm
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,
ROBERT JACKSON
3845 S. VIA DEL REYECUELO
GREEN VALLEY, AZ 85614-5418
MTC-00021868
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
Subject: settlement case Stop all these lawsuits
Stop all these Lawsuits. AOL is the pot calling the kettle black
and is continuing the disruption of an economic recovery! Create
your rules and pardon what ever violations you think Microsoft
committed. The consumers are being hurt by these Companies using the
Justice system to destory one another so they may take control of
the market. Throw out the AOL case immediately. I have stock in both
companies and use AOL as you can see by my email address. Microsoft
has not inhibited my ability to choose a browser! AOL wants to only
be compensated for their own poor judgement in purchasing Netscape
and wants to disrupts the competition for broadband. These lawsuits
are bad for the consumer, the stock holders and the Country. The
only people who win are the lawyers!
"The Stillmans"
Pepper Pike, OH
MTC-00021869
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
Subject: aol timewarner suit
a note to express my disagreement with aol timewarner decision
to bring suit against microsoft. enough of this litigation crap. I
own no microsoft stock and have no interest in microsoft other than
following the legal turmoil over the past years and I say enough!
georgre lehnhard
[email protected]
MTC-00021870
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
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,
Latricia Vaughn
3404 Mexico Gravel Rd.
Columbia, MO 65202-2626
MTC-00021871
From: Al Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my experience, Microsoft products have consistently been the
best product for the consumer. If you build a better mousetrap the
world will beat a path to your door. Microsoft has done that and
should be commended for their effort, not called to task and
punished for their good work.
Albert Turner
28101 SW Mohave Terrace
Wilsonville, OR 97070-9257
[email protected]
MTC-00021872
From: John (038) Dorothy Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that Microsoft is and has done a great service to the
advancement of the personal computer in it's usage by the general
public. The inclusion of Microsoft's Internet Explorer teamed with
Outlook Express has made life much easier for me. My 84 year old
responses are not as capable as are my grandkids, who can even work
with AOL.
Recently I tried AOL and then Worldnet on a new laptop with
disgusting results. After a great deal of effort they both worked in
a very sloppy manner. When I tried to uninstall them I found that
they had corrupted my Microsoft files so badly that I now must
reinstall my Microsoft programs in order to function. This, I think,
is a deliberate attack on Microsoft.
Both these companies would rather cry than compete-why do
you help them in there attempt to destroy competition?
Wilbur T. Johnston
PO Box 448
Port Angeles, WA
98362-0069
[email protected]
MTC-00021873
From: Meir Levi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/24/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge,
Much like many other citizens in this country, and an owner of a
small business, I am very concerned about the outcome of the federal
Government proposed settlement with MS.
This shame full settlement SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. Approval of
it, would lead to ONE COMPANY, ONE MAN to decide which promising
technologies would live or die. This proposed settlement clearly
does not serve the consumer's interest.
By all mean, your honor, Please, reject even the thought of
approving it, and help restore the healthy competition in US
marketplace.
Meir Levi
Saratoga, CA
(Silicon Valley)
MTC-00021874
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08pm
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,
John Andrako
1970 Albion Rd.
Midlothian, VA 23113-4147
MTC-00021875
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
The settlement isn't a deturnet to future activity.
James E. Collins, Jr.
373 Hayden Hill Rd
Hinesburg, VT. 05461
MTC-00021876
From: Ben Aein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my disappointment in the DOJ's
meaningless deal with Microsoft. The DOJ under Ashcroft seems much
to eager
[[Page 27096]]
to settle this matter with no serious changes to Microsoft or even
financial penalties for abusing their monopoly power.
Microsoft holds way too much power in the computer world. They
keep bringing out new products with new features, thus crushing any
competing software providing the same services. But as anyone knows,
they do not fix the tens of thousands of bug's in their software.
Nor do they address their serious security issues, until after the
damage is done. In a competitive market place, a company would not
stay in business if they had a track record like Microsoft's. The
consumer would stop buying a shoddy product and use something else.
But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has no real
Competition, so consumers are left with no other Choice.
At first Bill Gates thought nothing of the internet, even as
Netscape was happily turning out new versions of Navigator. Then a
light went on in Gates head. People can shop on the internet! People
can pay for services like news sights. If Microsoft did not create a
program to compete with Netscape, MS would not control the internet
and web commerce like they do with the desktop OS space.
So MS created explorer. Then they gave it away for free, in
order to gain market share against the established Netscape. But
that did not give them the kind of market share they needed. So they
decided to merge their OS which has no rivals with their poorly
adopted Web browser, thus giving the OS monopoly to the web
software. Netscape could no longer compete against a product that
was included in an OS.
Which brings up another point. What company or investor would
put money in a project that would try to challenge Microsoft in the
computer operating system? How would you get distribution from the
big computer makers like Dell, when Microsoft charges a TAX for
every machine sold whether or not it has Windows loaded on it. A
small company called Be tried to gain market share for their OS, but
could not get distribution or bundled with the Major Pc makers. Even
the FREE linux is not readily available from the Major pc makers.
Microsoft now wants to charge a subscription fee for their
software. Why? Because many users are not upgrading their software
every time Microsoft releases a new version. So MS is having a hard
time sustaining their huge growth. So you make them pay whether they
want to upgrade or not, thus becoming a "utility" like
service.
I believe that if MS is not made to play fair, they will become
unstoppable. I see a future in which MS will have their own bank,
and their own credit cards for Windows users. So when you shop on
line with a windows computer, you will buy things from MS owned
sites, with MS credit cards, using MS banks. All that's really left
for MS is to start a shipping service! Thus MS would be stepping on
the toes of Big Banks and using their monopoly power in the desktop
space to steal the business of well established industries that can
not compete because they do not own the desktop OS monopoly.
It is clear that MS abused their Monopoly power, continues to do
so, and will not stop until they are forced to! They Have caused
Billions of dollars of damage to users, business, and the government
by having such gaping security holes that allow devastating email
viruses like "I Love you", "Love Bug", and
"Melissa" to shut down and cause havoc for millions of
Windows users. They should be liable for damages for these security
issues. IF they were, they would fix the problems!
If MS is split up, they would then Have to be more concerned
with fixing all the bugs and security issues with their operating
system instead of trying to integrate every feature under the sun
into their core operating system, because this would no longer be an
option.
Please do not let MS have the ability to continue to stifle the
computer industry and control how many business that thrive off it
operate. Split them up and let new Competition begin. Please stop
them before it is too late.
Ben
MTC-00021877
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
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,
Leo Reilly
194 Tuckers Corners Road
Highland, NY 12528
MTC-00021878
From: Digger777@world
net.att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
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,
Edward Miller
P.O. Box 255
Moyers, OK 74557
MTC-00021879
From: Connor Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the proposed settlement.
Connor Smith
Computer Support
Cline Davis & Mann, Inc.
MTC-00021880
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
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,
Andrew Warren
POB 476
New Tripoli, PA 18066
MTC-00021881
From: Mike Choy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed settlement. Microsoft has clearly
engaged in anti-competitive behavior for many years and the remedy
should be more than just a slap on the wrist.
Thank you.
Michael Choy
Stanford, CA
MTC-00021882
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 27097]]
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,
Renee Halay
8044 Garden North Drive
Garden Ridge, TX 78266-2714
MTC-00021883
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is a severely bad idea to reward Microsoft with a
large number of school kid customers as the punishment for their
illegal business practices.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion on this
matter.
Bill Arnold
[email protected]
Jeffus & Williams Company
907 Capitol Avenue,
Juneau, Alaska 99801
907-586-3700 or fax 586-3703
MTC-00021884
From: Kathie Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
Subject: microsoft case
To Whom It May Concern,
I'd like to communicate my thoughts on the Microsoft case. I
think this case has gone far enough and don't want any more of my
taxes to pay for this. This government intrusion into private
business is not what I pay taxes for. It has already cost the
taxpayer way too much and should be stopped. Let free enterprise
work. I don't want to support a bunch of government attorneys who
have nothing better to do than make life difficult for those that
succeed.
Sincerely,
Kathie Gregory
20950 S.W. Rock Creek Rd.
Sheridan, Oregon 97378
MTC-00021885
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:10pm
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,
Gerald Mcclenning
9891 Little Indian Cr Rd
Lonedell, MO 63060
MTC-00021886
From: Tom Dyess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
As a software developer, I am deterred from creating any type of
software because of the Microsoft Corporation. Let me explain. If I
were to create a software product and release it, one of two things
could happen.
First, it would be a great hit, thousands of customers would
purchase my company's software boosting the bottom line. I would be
thoroughly interested in reinvesting the monies earned from sales
into a larger, more robust product, a larger sales force, a larger
customer service technician force, and a larger accounting and MIS
department to coordinate it all. This would be a wonderful scenario
except one thing; if Microsoft saw that it was making money, or saw
that it was in any way a threat to their hegemony, they would force
me to sell at a depreciated price or threaten to crush the company,
putting all my work to rest and all my employees out of work. Under
normal circumstances, this would be competitive, but in Microsoft's
case it is not.
Similar to Rockefeller, Microsoft takes earnings from one branch
of their company, lets say Office or Windows and allocates them to a
new branch. Rockefeller executes similar techniques when he took the
profits from one town to undercut his competition in another, this
eliminating the competition. Once the competition in the new
geographic location was removed, he could then raise his prices in
that location. This has been done to stiffen competition from their
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and other products.
Second, I could purposely retard marketing and promotion in the
hopes that I could keep my software "under the radar" of
Microsoft so I could keep my company. Unfortunately without a well
planned and executed marketing campaign, I cannot hire the new
developers, new sales force, new customer service representatives
and new accounting and MIS teams. Microsoft already has these teams
in place and would hire much fewer if any new employees.
Furthermore, since my company was either bought out or purposely
reined, other companies would not form to support my software. No
new companies to make plugins would form, I could not offload the
documentation to a third party, and I would be too small to hire
outside consultants to improve my software.
Much of the innovation has been decapitated in this way.
Software visionaries, even with a brilliant product that would
branch off the technology sector with a totally new discipline would
eventually face the obstacle of Microsoft "competing" as
they call it for the niche. The rhetorical question of "Why
bother?" comes to mind. Why exerting the blood, sweat and
tears of building a company when it will just be bought out at a
huge discount, or merely squashed into a quickly fading memory by a
company who discovers that this new niche can make money.
Restricting Microsoft will, in the short term, harm the
technology sector, but to use an analogy, if you cut a flower off a
branch properly, two will grow in it's place. There is no doubt that
Microsoft has done wonders for the technology sector, but their
wonders are now self-fulfilling. Their only interest is making
money, and they no longer need to accomplish that through
innovation, which would make money for the entire industry rather
than a single company.
Thank you for your interest,
Tom Dyess
Orlando, Florida
MTC-00021887
From: Jason Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proprosed settlement is completely inadequate to
prevent further monopolistic abuse from Microsoft. However, in order
to not just provide negative without some positive suggestion, here
is my remedy.
(1) Force Microsoft to not change file formats in Office
products to force comsumer upgrades. How many users would actually
upgrade if they didn't have to be compatible with other users/
companies that had upgraded.
(2) Make the file formats publicly available and any changes
must go through a public review process. The file formats have (for
better or worse) become a defacto standard interchange format. They
should most likely be controlled by an existing standards body.
(3) Microsoft must ship Office products with the default save
format being the standard format and every attempt should be made to
keep the user from inadvertently saving in a non-standard format.
Aside from these issues, forcing the release of a windows 2000/
XP based OS that only provides the core OS (no IE, IIS, etc) would
be advantageous. It might actually be an OS we could use.
Hoping this doesn't go into an abyss,
jason
Jason Gilbert
Homewood, AL
"First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they
fight you. Then you win"-Mahatma Gandhi
MTC-00021888
From: T. Shannon Gilvary
[[Page 27098]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the reasons listed in Dan Kegel's comments , I object to the Proposed
Settlement. The Settlement is a slap on the wrist and will not
prevent Microsoft from further anti-competitive practices.
T. Shannon Gilvary
Union Beach, New Jersey
MTC-00021890
From: Steven The
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I've been using computers for more than 20 years and was one of
the first to use Internet Browser. I have never paid a penny for a
browser even when Netscape was the only company that made production
version browser.
I don't think it's right for Netscape and then AOL to go to our
government to seek legal remedy for their bad business strategy. I
think an internet browser should always be free as File Explorer has
always been because with the current technology trend they are
indistinguishable. Imagine paying extra for DIR command on DOS or ld
command on Unix.
In my conclusion, I wish that AOL lawsuit will not interfere
with the current Microsoft Settlement and the lawsuit will be
dismissed.
Sincerely yours,
Steven The
MTC-00021891
From: Webmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it conserns,
I strongly disagree with the proposed final judgement in the
Microsoft Antitrust trial. There are many anticompetive practices
that would be permitted to continue if this judgement is accepted.
A few of the concerns that I have are as follows.
APIs directly to the operating system and some critical
middleware would not be given.
File formats could still remain hidden and proprietary.
The provisions still do not allow for competitors in the
operating system field. For instance, competing operating systems
could not be developed that would run microsoft applications.
I cannot say at this time that these are my only concerns, but
in my brief initial scan of the proposal, these were a few of the
main concerns that immediately grabbed my attention.
In conclusion, I feel that if this proposal were to be accepted,
competition would see no significant improvement in the software
market.
Thank you for hearing my Concerns,
Jon Caudill
MTC-00021892
From: Larry G. Earp & Assoc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I, as a consumer, computer user, and taxpayer, say it is time
that we settle this case against Microsoft. This has gone on long
enough and a settlement will, among other things, settle down the
stock market. And if anyone doubts this, the decrease in the stock
market does show a strong coorelation to the start of this suit
going back to the Clinton DOJ.
Further more, this is a vehicle that certain states and
corporations are using to stuff their coffers at the expense of
Microsoft.
Please settle this case, and put and end to all litigation
against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Gordon Earp
Charlotte, NC
MTC-00021893
From: Richard Zak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft should be broken up to allow for better and
more healthy competition in the computer technology industry.
-Richard Zak
The Odyssey Tech Team
Technology Associate
http://www.theodysseyschool.org/
(410) 467-6668
MTC-00021894
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
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,
Larry Cole
2023 Hog Mountain Rd
Watkinsville, GA 30677
MTC-00021895
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:12pm
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,
Doug Crabtree
918 Conifer Ct
Windsor, CO 80550
MTC-00021896
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
I think the propesed settlement with microsoft, is very bad for
the American consumer and the hurt the recovery of our economy, it
is a very bad idea!
Jonathan Niebling
MTC-00021897
From: Sheila
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:14pm
Subject: Anti Trust Restitution
Your Honors:
I work in computer sales and have a front seat to the issues
that the end users are up against. This is an industry truly in its
infancy. Our homes and businesses are flooded with computers and
many users who barely understand just what it is that piece of
equipment is capable of doing or how it performs. The Virtual world
of the internet is hard for many to understand and their own
vulnerability is something I discuss with them at purchase.
Microsoft and its recent claim two days ago of making security
foremost in development is very sad. Billions have been already lost
due to careless and irresponsible software authoring by them. Now
that Microsoft is in court and in the limelight it is timely of Mr.
Gates to profess security. Software production is tedious and much
more so when the software is written with security in mind from the
very beginning.
Today when a Microsoft product is purchased duplication is
illegal and prosecution is real for the end user. In the beginning
Microsoft distributed the product for little or no cost and
encouraged duplication to blanket the market. Pirating became the
norm and they were successful. With that premise Microsoft's
responsibility to the public has grown exponentially and abuse of
that power is dangerous to millions of people world wide. In this
industry's infancy if laws are developed now and enforced strongly
we can all enjoy the experience that computers have brought into our
lives. Without strict guidelines the
[[Page 27099]]
industry will cause great harm to businesses and private citizens.
Microsoft's donation of one billion dollars to the schools would
be fine if any product other than Microsoft or Microsoft driven
equipment could be purchased. I am tired of trying to explain to my
children why so many high profile crimes are lessened and no
punishment is given. We owe our children an answer. When customers
ask why Microsoft is in trouble I give them a very simple analogy:
Imagine most of the country drove Chevrolets and you drove a Ford
and the only parts you can find are Chevrolet parts. Those parts
will not work with your Ford and Chevrolet will not modify or make
available parts that will work with vehicles other than theirs,
forcing the market their way. Microsoft's decision to not allow
their customers a choice and actually forcing the market is why they
are in court.
Embedding their browser software so deeply in the operating
system that removal of it is next to impossible is direct proof,
choice with Microsoft is out of the question. I don't want Microsoft
or any company delegating or restricting the software I use on my
computer. If they are allowed to continue in this fashion all choice
is gone. Mr. Gates understands the power of the computer industry
and has blatantly abused that power. He sunderstands code writing
and knows his company has failed to protect the public but did it
anyway. I admire business leaders that have built businesses and
gave something back to those that have supported them. I don't
admire unethical businesses that have violated the public trust and
have damaged what so many of us work for everyday. I love my job and
enjoy helping my customers understand the computer industry and all
of its possibilities. Microsoft's punishment/restitution is pivotal
to the future of this industries development and the way business
will be conducted in the coming years. Set the precedent now,
please.
Sheila Parker
Computer Base
Reno, NV
[email protected]
MTC-00021898
From: Jay Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Who It May Concern:
This message serves to voice my opinion AGAINST the Microsoft
settlement.
The settlement is a travesty to the American People and the
nation in general.
Jay Martin
9 Jacqueline St.
Hudson, NH 03051-5308
MTC-00021899
From: Scott Rockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many issues I have with Microsoft however one sticks
out. I do not want Microsoft's Internet Explorer. As a consumer, I
feel it and it's Outlook mail system are garbage. Why does my
machine have to have these programs? As a consumer, it is almost
impossible to buy a Windows operating system and not be forced to
have these products. Clearly MS is in an unfair competitive position
causing harm to firms like Netscape and Qualcom.
Thank you,
Scott Rockwell
408-360-0351
MTC-00021900
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
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,
Rex RoarkMCPO USN RET
213 E Bradley St
Star City, AR 71667
MTC-00021901
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft is insane. It does little if anything to address the
egregious transgressions of Microsoft against developers in the
software community. What about Netscape and it's browser? What about
DR-DOS? What about Java? What about the myriad of other companies
that innovate only to have Microsoft strong-arm them, threatening
sell to us at our price or will build a competing product and give
it away for free.
Embrace, Embellish, Extinguish. That is the mantra of Microsoft,
all under the guise of competition.
The proposed settlement does little to nothing to address these
past problems and basically alllows Microsoft to continue in its
errant business ways. Giving poor schools money to buy only
computers that run Microsoft products provides a lock-in to a new
market and excludes other system vendors. Is the
"punishment" to provide Microsoft with additional
revenue streams? What about those other companies that were injured?
I could go on but I am bitter and cynical that the US government
would just throw away a solid case and worse, establish a
precedence.
In closing, I'll just say that the browser is not part of an
operating system.
Fred Muhlenberg 2286 Emerald Heights Court
Reston, VA 20191-1746
703.620.1653
MTC-00021902
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:14pm
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,
Sergio Pastor
3680 Grant Ste. K
Reno, NV 89509
MTC-00021903
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:11pm
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,
Ward Graham
4261 Milligans Cove Road
Manns Choice, PA 15550-8030
MTC-00021904
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
[[Page 27100]]
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,
Robert Vander Hart
8 Hara St
Worcester, MA 01604
MTC-00021905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR, attorney.general @po. state.ct.us
@inet...
Date: 1/24/02 12:20pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DATE: January 24, 2002
TO: [email protected]
ATT: RITA B. HESSE
FROM: Louise Keane
22 Allen Road
North Haven, CT 06473-1424
[email protected]
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I cannot accurately speak to all my specific concerns about the
pending Microsoft case because I am not technically proficient
enough to do that. Some of my concerns relate to problems I am
having using a Macintosh computer from home, which I have only been
doing since the end of November, 2001. Clearly, some of my problems
arise from the fact that my new computer is not a Microsoft product.
I am just beginning to see some of the problems I am having that may
be related to the fact that Microsoft has such rigid control of the
home computer market.
I have had this computer for less than two months, but have
encountered various problems because it is not a Microsoft product.
I have difficulty sending and receiving some kinds of e-mail. AOL,
my Internet service provider tells me that the problem exists
because my version of AOL cannot perform certain functions for the
Mac. Attempts to download various files over the Internet have also
been thwarted because either the Internet site or AOL cannot
accommodate an interface with my Mac.
I know that I could buy a software package from Microsoft that
would allow my computer to emulate a Microsoft product, but I find
that solution irritating and unsatisfactory. Why shouldn???t the
Internet sites and service providers be totally compatible with both
Microsoft and Macintosh products? Is it because 90% of their clients
use Microsoft?
I made the choice of a Macintosh partly because the first small
computers that I ever used (in the early 1980???s) were Apples. They
were efficient, easy to use, and I was familiar with them. Just over
four years ago, when I changed jobs, I had to adjust to Microsoft
computers because those were the computers that were available in my
new workplaces.
When purchasing my Macintosh computer for home this past fall,
there were only three possible vendor choices within a twenty-mile
radius of my home. I began at the closest location, a Circuit City.
In that store, the particular model in which I was interested was
disconnected from any power source, making it unavailable for me to
try out. Attempts to flag-down a sales person were fruitless, and I
decided to try to find a store that would be more helpful for me.
I ultimately had to go to a store that I???d hoped to avoid,
that was a twenty mile drive from my house. I hoped it would be
worth the drive and the trouble and that the staff would seem more
knowledgeable and available to help me.
Had I not been so determined to buy an Apple product, I???m sure
I could have gone to any number of closer locations to purchase a
Microsoft computer. I am thinking about buying a new mouse and an
external disk drive for my computer. Were they Microsoft brand, I
would have many options at the Circuit City store about 8 miles from
my house. I could probably even buy the components from an office
supply store.
When people hear about the problems I have encountered, I feel
sure that they will be even more likely to avoid buying non-
Microsoft computer equipment. They will not want to be bothered with
these kinds of things. The fact that Apple has a smaller share of
the current market will probably only prove to ensure that their
market share will continue to decrease with time unless something is
done to turn this situation around.
I don???t know how this can be done, but to continue to allow
Microsoft to run as they are currently running, will do nothing to
encourage competitive companies to even try to come to market. As
long as Microsoft continues to dominate the market for small
computers, vendors will continue to ignore the handful of us non-
Microsoft users. We will be left to purchase Microsoft programs to
assist us.
The Microsoft Corporation doesn???t seem to realize that they
have been charged with operating unlawfully as regards the antitrust
laws of the nation. Have they yet even attempted to make any
recompense for those violations beyond an offer to extend their
corporate influence further into disadvantaged schools by furnishing
those schools with refurbished Microsoft equipment? Why did they not
offer instead to purchase Macintosh equipment for those schools, in
the interest of lessening their dominance in the market?
Unless Microsoft???s operating system and applications systems
are separated, an d unless more technical information about the
operating system is made available to whose who wish to promote
competing products, Microsoft will continue to increase its grip on
the computer purchasing public and to increase its influence on the
access to the Internet.
I hope that the initial promise we saw at the dawn of the
computer age will not diminish. We need to encourage creative minds
to feel rewarded for innovation, growth, and development. We want to
continue to see true expansion of communication in all directions,
not limitations and obstructions imposed by a small controlling
group.
I put my trust very firmly behind Richard Blumenthal,
Connecticut???s Attorney General. I hold out hope that he will be
able to help us to determine what is the right thing to do. He has
become an uncompromising champion of THE PUBLIC INTEREST. He is
reluctant to let Microsoft off the hook for their blatant disregard
of antitrust law and their continuing arrogance and abuse of
monopoly power. I know that he will bring many urgent concerns to
your attention.
cc: Richard Blumenthal,
Attorney General,
State of Connecticut
[email protected]
MTC-00021906
From: Roland Gauthier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
As a concerned american, consumer, and professional who uses
computers in my daily work, I believe that it is crucial that the
Department of Justice follow through with this long drawn out
process of rendering justice for the americans who have been harmed
by Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. Microsoft should not be
allowed to get through this without more than a slap on the wrist
and a pat on the back, as the current proposed settlement would do.
Letting them give away their own technology and to our schools is
not going to remedy the harm they have done to consumers and to
technology innovators in the past 15 years. This would not only be a
negligible monetary punishment (in comparison to what they've made
off of us all), but would instead encourage their choke-hold on
school children and consumers alike. Microsoft is thumbing its nose
at the american justice system, and I would hope that this
administration will not ignore the sins of big business, and instead
protect the rights of american people and foster competition in
business and technology.
A big problem with Microsoft is that they offer mediocre
software. And everyone is force to use it because it is the de-facto
standard. One appropriate remedy would be to put Microsoft on
probation: to have their software checked by an appointed outside
panel of government technology experts-examining potential
security issues (for which Microsoft is notorious) and in terms of
further monopolistic behavior (ie creating its own standards to
control media)-BEFORE they can ship it. This probation should
last 5 to 10 years, with a possibility for a "parole"
for good behavior. Microsoft can improve their software and
competitors can more easily flourish.
Microsoft would create (and replenish yearly, based upon its
profits) a large
[[Page 27101]]
endowment to fund all levels of education. Not by giving away
software, or making any ads for their products, but supporting
public schools throughout the country to encourage math, science and
artistic programs, or school enhancement where they are needed most.
That would make an impact, be fair to other tech companies, and give
Microsoft a better name.
Thank you. I trust you will serve justice in this case.
Sincerely,
Roland Gauthier
Oakland, CA
MTC-00021907
From: Ken Ian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As part of the Tunney Act comment process, I wish to inform you
that 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 does it in any real way inhibit their ability (or
desire) 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,
Ian T. Flockhart
61 Gilson Road
Littleton, MA 01460-1300
[email protected] / [email protected]
MTC-00021908
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:17pm
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,
Joanne Rainey
130 Elm St #122
Maxwell, TX 78656
MTC-00021909
From: Aliaksandr Dzeshchanka
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
MTC-00021910
From: Christopher Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:21pm
Subject: settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement. I believe the
company should be more heavily regulated at the least. Ideally, it
should be split into several competing entities.
I also think the government is doing its citizens a disservice
by allowing Microsoft to remain intact, with little more than a
proverbial slap on the wrist. I intend to fully articulate my
displeasure at the ballot box this November.
Best wishes,
Christopher Elliott
http://www.elliott.org
19 Oceana Drive
Key Largo, FL 33037
(305) 453-4781
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00021911
From: Steve Schott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
It is disappointing to me that the proposed settlement does
little to penalize Microsoft for the vast amount of destruction and
abuse that they have caused.
There is nothing in the settlement to prevent further abuse, nor
are the penalties enough to even be noticed.
I belive that Microsoft was shown to be a monopoly, and that is
from my understanding illegal.
Dividing the company and preventing them from crating their
virtually exclusive OEM licensing are the answers.
I am not optimistic that public comment really matters. The
decision was purely political.
I am a strong Republican, but this is blatantly political.
Microsoft will never agree to anything that will truly disrupt their
current business practices.
It would be refreshing to see some moral strength from the DOJ
by having this proposed settlement rejected, and pursuing a course
that would prevent this from happening again. These problems are the
same ones that existed at least as early as 1993.
It is sad to say that I do not believe that the public is being
served.
Thank's
Steve Schott
Network Administrator
Waterford Institute
Sandy, UT USA
mailto:[email protected]
Definition of insanity: Repeating the same action over and over
expecting a different outcome.
MTC-00021912
From: Vincent P. Broman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed DOJ settlement with microsoft looks like a
bad idea; it does not sufficiently remedy past nor future monopolist
activity by MS.
Vincent Broman
US Citizen and registered voter
[email protected]
MTC-00021913
From: Dirk A. Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Afternoon:
The object of this message is to protest the legal
perambulations against Microsoft via court challenges. As settlement
finally appeared imminent in the Government case, now new
allegations have been put forth against the company (Microsoft) by a
competitor, AOL (America Online). This is corporate harassment!
Indeed, by permitting the "sniping away at success," our
legal system condones the restriction of corporate creativity and
innovation. Elements that made this country truly great. Freedom is
the keystone of our American way, and just as it is for our
citizens, so too should it be for business.
Sincerely,
Dirk A. Watson
MTC-00021914
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:17pm
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
[[Page 27102]]
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 Petro, Jr.
1021 Irving Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44109
MTC-00021915
From: Greg Raclaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
dear sirs/madam:
the recent filing of litigation by aol/time warner against
microsoft is just another example of how we interpret or mis-use the
justice system. instead of these two companies competing to acquire
market share by offering consumers the best product, we use the
courtroom to determine who can compete and who can't. let's not give
one or the other the competitive advantage. determine the strenghts
and weaknesses of both organization and see where each has gained
the most from consumers respect and resolve from there. let them
compete based on their strengths. by giving one company the benefit
of a settlement, could create another monopolistic advantage for the
othere. i am a stockholder of both companies; aol and microsoft.
thanks for listening to me. sincerely, greg
Greg Raclaw
Genesis Manufacturing Inc.
847-839-9898
Fax: 847-839-9918
MTC-00021916
From: Steve Madancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I am writing today in order comment on the
proposed Microsoft settlement.
I wish to voice my strong opposition to the settlement as it now
stands, as I believe it does not address many of the anti-
competitive practices that Microsoft employs against any potential
competitors. Not only is the proposed settlement an ineffective
solution to Microsoft's burgeoning monopoly, it actually helps
Microsoft extend its reach by providing it entry into the few areas
that it does not currently dominate (education, for example).
I urge that this settlement be scrapped, and a solution that
effectively breaks Microsoft's stranglehold on the software industry
be adopted.
Thank you,
Steve Madancy
MTC-00021917
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:18pm
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,
Linda Parent
1401 E Calvert St
South Bend, IN 46613
MTC-00021918
From: dave mallery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I signed the open letter from kegel.com regarding the many
difficulties with the settlement. I believe that the settlement as
it now stands only rewards microsoft for their past criminal
behavior and gives them new tools to continue their illegal
domination of the computer market worldwide.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Dave Mallery, K5EN
PO Box 520
Ramah, NM 87321
MTC-00021919
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:20pm
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,
Brenda Downey
405 Ranger Dr.
Buda, TX 78610
MTC-00021920
From: Sheley, Todd A.
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Here are a few opinions I have about this settlement...
1. I don't think that it goes far enough. I don't think that
Microsoft should be broken up but something should be done about the
bundling of applications. I just installed Windows XP Pro and I can
not even remove Internet Explorer or MSN Messenger. I do not want to
use MSN Messenger but I have to have it on my PC. Same goes with the
new Microsoft Movie Maker.
2. Microsoft should be made to provide Office for competing
OS's. If Office was available for Linux and so forth there would be
more competition. The first thing most people say when asked why the
don't change Operating Systems it is because of Office.
3. Microsoft should also be made to not only make there products
available to other Operating Systems but make them work the same. I
run Mac OS X and I have Windows Media Player installed on my Mac.
Half the stuff on www.windowsmedia.com does not even work through
Windows Media Player for Mac. These are just a few thoughts about
the situation. I believe that the settlement is a good thing but it
did not nearly go far enough.
Todd Sheley
Programmer/Analyst II
Franciscan Skemp Healthcare
700 West Ave. South
La Crosse, WI 54601
Phone: 608-791-9781 Ext. 4656
Fax: 608-791-9712
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00021921
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:20pm
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,
ray smith
pob 972
kremmling, CO 80459
MTC-00021922
From: Maher Saba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dir Sirs,
I am writing this email to let you know of my personal support
for the Microsoft settlement. I have been a customer of
[[Page 27103]]
Microsoft for a long time and I like their products. The settlement
is fair and a good ending for a long trial. I hope the judge
approves the settlement.
Thanks,
Maher Saba
15720 NE 61St Court
Redmond, WA 98052
MTC-00021923
From: Kay Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Clinton Administration started this action against Microsoft
to help out their political buddies at Netscape, as well as some
others. Everything that has happened so far has hurt the consumer
and Microsoft and benefited these FOB's.
It does not hurt the consumer to have Internet Explorer on their
computer, and it is easy to delete the icon if you don't want to see
it there. It does not cost the consumer anything. It is, like so
many other technology based products, a feature you can use or not
use depending upon your particular needs.
On the other hand, all of this litigation has cost Microsoft a
lot of money and goodwill. The result is that Microsoft's products
are now becoming more restrictive, less compatible, and more
intrusive than they were before this litigation began. Your
continued prosecution will probably result in more and more
inconvenience for the users of Microsoft products. It is time to
stop it now.
Kay Brooks
14309 Bauer Rd NE
Albuquerque, NM 87123
[email protected]
MTC-00021924
From: Mark Ebaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As Microsoft has been found guilty of unfair business , please
change the settlement offer in a way that will possibly punish prior
actions , and definitely restrict further improper actions . The
settlement ,as is , is completely anemic , and new methods of
exploiting monopoly power are waiting at every point. Please allow
competition to allow freedom to continue.
Mark Ebaugh
MTC-00021925
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have sent a letter on to Attorney General John Ashcroft. Sorry
for any delay, my printer went down. I am happy to take part.
David F. Saenz
MTC-00021926
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 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,
charles griffin
3935 loblolly dr
naples, FL 34114
MTC-00021927
From: Steve Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I recently had an opportunity to review the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I have been developing software
for Microsoft operating systems (including nearly every released
version of Windows) for nearly 20 years now.
On numerous occasions going back to the Windows 95 days, I
encountered issues with various Windows APIs which would have
allowed software I was writing to function significantly better in
the Windows environment, yet these APIs were either completely
undocumented, or their documentation was incomplete. Asking
Microsoft for more details on these APIs invariably failed to get
that information-Microsoft always had some excuse not to
release the information to us, although we've noted that certain 3rd
party developers who do not directly compete with Microsoft have
received such information.
Many of these APIs fell into two categories:
The first category are undocumented APIs which were part of the
operating system as released, but were clearly used by Microsoft
application packages. Since these APIs were undocumented,
Microsoft's applications had a clear competitive edge by using them.
The second category were APIs which were added into the
operating system when installing a Microsoft application package,
such as Office, or Intellimouse. These types of APIs were added into
system DLLs replaced by the application package, thus enhancing the
OS. It is fairly common for Microsoft to enhance their OS in this
fashion, giving their own applications exclusive access to the new
APIs, before later rolling them into the next OS release.
Interestingly, the documentation of these APIs usually is not
available until well after they are merged into the OS release,
again giving their own applications a longer competitive edge.
I bring this up because, in reading through the proposed
settlement, Section VI-A, it appears that it would only require
Microsoft to document APIs in use between Windows and various
Middleware packages, NOT those APIs which are used by Microsoft
application programs. In my opinion, any settlement which fails to
require Microsoft to document *all* Windows and Middleware APIs
being used by any Microsoft application or middleware program will
be completely ineffective in preventing further abuses.
Also, I believe that the specification of what consists of
Microsoft Middleware in Section VI-J and K is limited in that it
does not include any mention of .Net, does not make allowance for
additional types of middleware which may appear in the future, and
could easily be bypassed by making name changes or changes in how
version numbers are reported. These are the most glaring problems
with this settlement-there are many others I will not go into.
Overall, it appears to me that this settlement as written will have
little if any effect on Microsoft's future behavior, given the
number of loopholes it leaves for Microsoft to slip through.
Further, it makes little effort to redress the damages Microsoft has
done in the past.
While I understand the desire for a settlement on this issue,
I'm afraid that this is neither an appropriate nor sufficient
settlement, and register my strong objections to it at this time.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Bennett
MTC-00021928
From: John Victor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I strongly urge the Dept. of Justice to forge ahead with the
proposed settlement with Microsoft. It is time to end this once and
for all. I firmly believe this lawsuit has been politically
motivated and has been detrimental to consumers. Please accept the
proposed settlement.
sincerely,
John Victor
MTC-00021929
From: Great Horned Owl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am neither a law school student nor an attorney. However, as a
member of the public invited to comment on the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment, I must object.
As a private citizen who has followed the Federal Government's
complaint against Microsoft, I have long believed Microsoft to be a
monopoly. In my opinion, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Memorandum
and Order, dated June 7, 2000, was correct, and His Honor's Final
Judgment, also dated June 7, 2000, was correct and appropriate.
Furthermore, I object to and believe to be entirely
inappropriate the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. As I read the
Judgment, it includes no provisions for the altering of the
corporate structure of Microsoft Corporation, most certainly not on
the scale of those provisions in Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's
Final Judgment.
In closing, I most strenuously object to the language in Section
III, Paragraph J. In my opinion, this paragraph's explicit language
of non-restraint against Microsoft Corporation
[[Page 27104]]
severely limits the punitive effect of this Revised Proposed Final
Judgment, giving it the effect of a verbal reprimand or slap on the
wrist, when what is called for is a far more severe penalty.
Respectfully,
Brian Donnelly
Bedford, NH
MTC-00021930
From: David Sills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I write to voice an opinion regarding the Microsoft Settlement
currently being considered. In my opinion, this "remedy"
does not deserve the name, as it does little to restrain the
practices that have led to the current situation, and promises
little real reform for the future. I wish to take a positive
approach, however, and discuss two requirements that would represent
a real improvement in the current situation. It is clear from some
of the documents available as a result of the case and an
examination of Microsoft's practices generally that there are two
methodologies for "fixing" the playing field that could
quite easily be remedied. These are documentation of the
interactions between Windows and other software and hardware, and
blocking Microsoft's strategy of using patents to restrain
competitors who would otherwise be able to produce competitive
software. The first would involve require Microsoft to make open and
available to anyone all interfaces between software components, all
communications protocols, and all file formats. This is not
particularly difficult, and could easily be enforced: a court could
simply require Microsoft to answer questions raised by any
incomplete documentation. In particular, however, two arguments
should not be allowed to impinge upon this remedy: nondisclosure
agreements and security concerns. It would be trivial to circumvent
such an order if Microsoft could simply say in response to such a
court order that they could not answer it owing to nondisclosure
agreements, which they could indeed require from other firms for
exactly this purpose. As to security concerns, even if everyone
knows the interfaces involved with Windows, it is unlikely that this
actually raises the level of security risk. On the one hand, it
makes it possible for standard solutions to any security issues to
be promulgated much more quickly and efficiently; on the other, it
is doubtful that much of the community attacking security
vulnerabilities (including those commonly known "script
kiddies") actually possess the technical knowledge to make
significant use of this information. As to patenting, there is no
intention here to keep Microsoft from sharing in the bounty their
intellectual property creates. It is simply that some remedy must be
found to keep them from patents for "innovations" that
exist primarily not to solve software problems, but to block access
to technologies from competitors. I am not a patent lawyer (I am in
fact a software developer, and use both Microsoft and competing
products), but am sure that there are persons in that profession
with sufficient expertise to advise the court on appropriate
provisions.
In sum, I would strongly voice my opinion against the current
settlement, and I offer these improvements as a way to assist in
fashioning a better one.
Thank you for your attention.
David Sills
MTC-00021931
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
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,
Barbara Green
24014 E Olive Ln Liberty Lake, WA 99019
MTC-00021932
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
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,
Sue & Bill Morgan
4391 Nelson Siding Rd Cle Elum, WA 98922
MTC-00021933
From: Steven Mascaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please accept this email as my support for the Microsoft
settlement that the Department of Justice has negotiated. There were
countless hours spent to find the best compromise for the Microsoft
company and their competitors. The millions of dollars spent would
be for naught if we don't settle the issue and let the information
tecnology industry begin to heal.
Again, thank you for your effforts and I encourage the closure
of this issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Mascaro, Representative
Utah House of Representative
District # 47
MTC-00021934
From: Alan Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the US government has sold out to Microsoft.
I think the antitrust settlement is a VERY BAD settlement!!!!!!
Alan Ward
2013 Brookwood Drive
Fort Collins, Co 80525
MTC-00021935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23pm
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,
Jocelynn Bailey
13309 Sturno Drive
Clifton, VA 20124-0957
MTC-00021936
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
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.
[[Page 27105]]
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,
Juanita Hoover
130S.FR.St.#411
Sunbury, PA 17801-2603
MTC-00021937
From: Peter Kull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
As the owner of a small business I feel compelled to comment.
The idea that funding education efforts to "make up"
for gross corporate bad behavior seems odd to me. No problem with
funding education-but how does that help the businesses that
have been at a disadvantage due to the strong armed mafia-like
tactics of microsoft?
So...
How about a cash award to the businesses that have had good
product unjustly squelched?
Go ahead and let them fund education, too. Cash only to the
school districts themselves, to spend on what THEY determine they
need. Not warmed over hardware and microsoft software!
Open up their Code. Now we can see some competition open up, to
good effect.
Allow customers to buy only the software components they want.
Thank you,
Peter Kull
Peter Kull Graphic Arts, Inc.
MTC-00021938
From: Stewart Hyde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FYI,
I think that open sourcing Internet Explorer will be a really
bad idea... Why this would allow for hackers to create even more
Virus's for PC and in todays days of security risks this would be a
disaster for customers and organizations.
It is really interesting to research where hacking comes from
and you find out that allot or based on Unix/linux style
errors...Open source means that hackers can change to code to break
rules and if so this can lead to extreme problems
Is trying to sue/break up Microsoft really a bad thing, look at
AOL/Time warner of the years-In sometimes they are
worst-Like my parents stuck on AOL because they don't know
better... At least Microsoft is not trying control content to make
it better for its own companies...
Of course these are my opinions as a costumer and a developer
not associated with any of companies evolved.
Stewart
MTC-00021940
From: rjsporleder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft government lawsuit
Enough is enough. There has been enough taxpayer tax wasted on
this silly butt lawsuit with no reason for it's beginning and
nothing to show for it's culmination. Clinton is gone, Bush doesn't
wish to pursue this. Drop it!
Richard Sporleder,
Marshall MO
[email protected]
MTC-00021941
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We think the settlement between Microsoft and The Justice Dept.
is a fair settlement. We believe that further litergation will be
harmful to the US economy and will serve no purpose except greed.
MTC-00021942
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i think microsoft should not be able to purchase their way out
of this one....
MTC-00021943
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I feel that the current settlement offer by the Department of
Justice is too lenient on Microsoft. It does not do enough to punish
Microsoft for their past transgressions and isn't strong enough to
prevent them from operating in exactly the same manner in the
future. I also find it odd that Microsoft should be allowed to
choose one member of the oversight committee and have veto power
over the second member. They are the ones who are supposed to be
punished. They shouldn't get to choose who punishes them.
Regards,
Mark Klassen
[email protected]
MTC-00021944
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
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,
Eugene Long
16406 Shagbark Place
Tampa, FL 33618-1200
MTC-00021945
From: Paul Levitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed antitrust
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I
believe that, rather than providing a remedy for Microsoft's illegal
conduct, will enable them to continue that conduct and exacerbate
its impact on computer users, software developers and a wide variety
of other businesses.
Others, with more specific technical and legal expertise than I
possess, have detailed the many shortcoming of the settlement, so I
will confine my remarks to a top level, user oriented view.
Microsoft, as the "findings of fact" make clear, after
obtaining a monopoly on computer operating systems, used that
monopoly power to obtain an effective monopoly on the application
software used for the vast majority of business functions. These two
monopolies are used to re-enforce each other: the OS monopoly
enables Microsoft to maintain barriers to entry for developers of
competing office applications, and their applications monopoly
prevents vendors of competing operating systems from establishing a
significant presence in most businesses. The most well documented
examples of this are Microsoft's refusal to develop a Linux version
of its Office product, and it's threat to end development of the
Macintosh version of Microsoft Office. Since the ability to support
Office has become a mandatory requirement for the majority of
businesses and government agencies (most U.S. government proposals
require submittal in Microsoft-proprietary formats), the threat to
drop Office gives Microsoft the power to determine whether a
competitor survives. It has been widely reported that this threat
has been a major factor in Apple Computer's reluctance to port it's
operating system to the Intel processor architecture, which would
make it a viable competitor to Windows.
Microsoft has also been shown to use these paired monopolies to
attack standards based, openly available, cross-platform
applications, file formats and programming languages, such as
Quicktime, Java and MP3, replacing them with proprietary
equivalents.
The end result of these illegal practices has been to restrict
the choice available to consumers and to stifle innovate
technologies and concepts. Far from being an "innovator"
, as they claim, MIcrosoft has acquired most of their products by
buying the company that originally developed them. Microsoft not
only continues its illegal practices, but has acted aggressively to
expand them and use its monopoly power to dominate new markets. They
continue to deny their guilt, even after conviction, and have
mounted a fraudulent campaign of letter writing and op-ed pieces
with company funds. They have even
[[Page 27106]]
directly attacked the antitrust division of the justice department
by lobbying to reduce its budget.
Given the current state of affairs, any settlement must
effectively address and reverse Microsoft's dual monopolies in
operating systems. It must also be enforceable and define specific,
structural remedies that will enhance competition and eliminate
barriers to entry in both the operating system and applications
markets. Barriers to entry should be eliminated for existing
companies, new companies and non-profit entities, such as the open
source community.
An enforcement mechanism that provides clearly defined and
meaningful penalties is essential. The mechanism must be completely
independent of Microsoft influence, and must be equipped with a full
array of technical and legal powers necessary to overcome
Microsoft's institutional history of evading and subverting previous
settlements and remedies. In addition to the many specific features
described by others who have commented (include the Massachusetts
Attorney General and Ralph Nader) I believe that it is essential
that several specific actions be implemented:
?Microsoft should be required to publish, in open source form,
all file formats and APIs, with all supporting documentation.
?Microsoft should be required to produce versions of all its
Windows applications for Linux and the Macintosh OS, with full
implementation of features and equivalent performance.
?Bundling of the MS Office applications should be prohibited.
The current bundling practice supports both the OS and Application
monopolies-e.g. why buy a competing spreadsheet or database
product when it's cheaper to but the entire Office suite than any
two components ?
Thank you for your attention in this matter,
Paul Levitt
The opinions expressed in this message are my own, and DO NOT
represent the position of TRW or of the Smithsonian Institution.
MTC-00021946
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
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,
Brian Wilson
327 South 5th Street
Moberly, MO 65270
MTC-00021947
From: Jim Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor
of it in its current state. This a vote against the current
settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is in favor
of fair competition.
Jim Smith
St. Louis, MO
Manager, Tech Svc.
Intercon
MTC-00021948
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think America has a selfdestructive streak.Whenever we have a
Company that towers over its worldwide competitors because of
technical manufacturing or business superiority we have to take it
down several notches to make it average.Stop harrassing
Microsoft.Instead be proud that America has technical superiority in
at least one area of technology!!!!!
MTC-00021949
From: Dan Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's products cost everyone money way past the actual
cost of the products. Ask Microsoft if they have MS products running
thier mainframes... Microsoft needs to have a remedy that is severe
enough to bring back compition. Otherwise MS will keep cranking out
products that have fancy covers and neat bells and whistles, but are
very costly for the home user and for business to use and maintain.
MTC-00021950
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:27pm
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,
Paul Rector
7885 Meadow Dr.
Nashport, OH 43830
MTC-00021951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:27pm
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 Widmer
98 Sharon Woods Rd.
Wadsworth, OH 44281-9730
MTC-00021952
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Our country was established on competition! I experience it
EVERYDAY of the week in banking. AS a small bank we fight hard and
give service an don t cry because of the larger banks and the NON-
TAX paying credit unions!! We try HARDER AN SUCCEED!!! Law suits
stifle competition and cost the public dollars in increased prices!
Microsoft has brought millions of dollars into our economy from
overseas!
MTC-00021953
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The idea that consumers are spending too much for Microsoft
Products is absurd. We paid $1 200 for MS products over 3 years and
it helped take our company sales from zero to $3 million. What
signifigant difference would it have made to me or my employees or
our families if I had saved $78??? I call on this government to stop
slowing one of our nation s main engines of wealth creation.
MTC-00021954
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is the government insane?? Why let Microsoft off the hook for
its high-handed
[[Page 27107]]
monopolistic practices by allowing them to give computers to
schools. All that does and trust me Microsoft understands this is
increase their stranglehold on our way of life. If you have
computers in the schools you have a foot in the door for the future.
This will INCREASE Microsoft s strength rather than forcing them to
participate on a level playing field. Look at Netscape. Do they have
a chance when Microsoft makes it so difficult to use it from within
their OS? Who is next Palm? What should be done is to force them to
unbundle all of their software to pay cash through the nose to
government schools etc who have been forced to see things their way.
MTC-00021955
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly I believe the decision reached in the
Microsoft case is a fair decision.
Please accept this as my vote to endorse the settlement. We need
to move on with technology and not waste any more time tying it up
in litigation.
Sincerely
Debra Phillips
MTC-00021956
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This case must be settled. We need every company free to conduct
business and employ people. Only lawyers have profited from this.The
whole thing was trumped up in the first place to help those who had
trouble competing with this outstanding company.Our country should
have MORE Microsofts!
MTC-00021957
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This case must be settled. We need every company free to conduct
business and employ people. Only lawyers have profited from this.The
whole thing was trumped up in the first place to help those who had
trouble competing with this outstanding company.Our country should
have MORE Microsofts!
MTC-00021958
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle The settlement!This has cost me a tax payer enought
money. It s time to move on. Thanks.
MTC-00021959
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AOL's recent suit against Microsoft appears well-timed to
disrupt and derail acceptance of Microsoft's proposed settlement for
alleged anti-trust practices. It is my opinion that the settlement
proposed by Microsoft is reasonable and fair. It is time to close
this issue and begin to repair and correct the damage to the
marketplace that has resulted. As usual, the consumer has been the
biggest loser of all. I urge you to recommend acceptance of
Microsoft's proposed settlement.
Regards,
Jerry Effenberger
17511 32nd. Ave. N. E.
Seattle, Wa. 98155
MTC-00021960
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Believe the suit against Microsoft should be dropped. Sun
Microsystems was a big factor in this suit only because they were
unable to keep pace with Microsoft. It is unfortunate that a suit
must be filed in order for other companies to succeed. During my
working years I was a lone woman amongst many men-well I had
to work many times harder to prove that I was capable of handling
the job. It is also true of companies trying to produce similar
products. Let s get on with life in the US and get this suit taken
care of. Life must go on not stagnate. Thank you for taking time to
read my view.
MTC-00021961
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft is getting off too easy. I think they broke
the law-a federal court and an appeals court said so. This so-
called settlement is as fake as the Naugahide on my couch.
MTC-00021962
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Govmernment should get off Bill Gates back and do something
constructive for the people like getting after Enron management and
their so-calles auditors.
MTC-00021963
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the settlement reached by DOJ and Microsoft was fair and
just to both parties. We have an open market society and businesses
should not be allowed to use the court system to regulate Fair
practices.
As long as fair market practices are used the market will decide
who succedes adn who fails- companies that cannot compete
should not be able to abuse the court system when they cannot
compete in a fair market. If people don t like a product or company
they will not buy thier products. The government should stay out of
this area if they determine it is a fair playing field. the DOJ has
decided the settlement is fair (as has Microsoft). Everything should
be settled at this point.
MTC-00021964
From: Paul Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a BAD DEAL for all of the USA. It will NOT stop MS from
going right back and doing the same thing when it (MS) feels it
needs to!
[email protected]
MTC-00021965
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement should be accepted by all parties as soon as
possible for the good of this nation. The delatory and litigious
actions of the state attorney-generals are counter-productive and
and work against the competitive and technological advantage of the
United States.
MTC-00021966
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The litigation should not be to continue and government should
leave Microsoft alone.
MTC-00021967
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft was the first company to open up it s MS-DOS code to
developers allowing the individual to participate in the computer
revolution. Apple was the competition then who had a closed system
not allowing others to hook into their code. Microsoft has lead the
advancement in software technology based on customer wants and
needs. Their server systems were opposite from Novel in that the
standard install gave everyone power and it then needed to be
limited while Novell gave nobody access rights until given by a IS
person. This openess approach has put them in the lead for
consumers. Please don t allow competition between companies to
become a political question. Developing standards and sharing these
standards with other companies has been the norm for Microsoft
through their Microsoft Developers Network (MSDN) program. Please
don t limit Microsofts ability to develope standards and leading
edge practices that give more capabilities to the end user because
their competitors are not offering as useful products.
MTC-00021968
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise. We believe
that this is in the best interest of our day to day business.
Thank you
Lou DeCarlo
MTC-00021969
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27108]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
government should stay out of the marketplace the marketplace
sorts all problems to the best advantage to the consumer. Let
competition work out all the issues to the advantage to the consumer
MTC-00021970
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
enough! if you re concerned about monopolists check out the oil
companies or watch AOL TIME WARNER..a few years ago the japanese
were beating us in every facet of business..our economy was
stymied..along came Bill Gates and almost single-handedly gave
America a way to vastly improve productivity..instead of trying hold
him down we should be building a monument to him.The settlement is
more than fair..don t listen to the cry babies..technology changes
too quickly for them to expect constant legal vindication (which
they don t deserve). Tell them that justice has been served and that
they must return to competing if they want success against
Microsoft.
MTC-00021971
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an IT professional I must say that I am growing weary of the
ongoing assault on Microsoft by several independent states and the
U.S. government ... despite the fact that an equitable settlement
was reached many weeks ago! I particularly ... am very weary of
interested third-party coaching that organizations such as AOL-Time
Warner are doing from the sidelines to advance their cause (e.g.
more bucks) under the guise of community interest and consumer
awareness. What BS!! Even as I right this brief note I see where AOL
has once again brought litigation against Microsoft with regard to
their Netscape Browser and Microsoft s IE. Hey ... just goes to show
you that we have the best political thinking that money can buy. If
you can t innovate then litigate. Frankly ... when the dust settles
on this case ... I want to file a suit against GM because they don t
integrate the v10 engine that I prefer ... just because it is made
by Dodge! Certainly that can t be right ... or legal? On a more
serious note however I as and individual want to choose who I do my
business with what I want to run my business on ... and who I want
to partner with as a technology leader. That decision will be
Microsoft Microsoft and MICROSOFT. If you can show me any successful
enterprise in this country that has succeeded without utilizing the
same type of aggressiveness initiative and intellectual committment
made by Microsoft ... I will kiss your you know what at high-noon
and let you pick the place. Stop wasting our time our patience and
our money.
There are far more important issues on the table today.
MTC-00021972
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe Microsoft needs to be taught a lesson needs a more
severe ruling than the Federal Government settled for one that will
encourage them to be better citizens of the high tech business
world.
Their cutthroat business practices are unfair to competitors and
limit our choice as customers among differing computer systems. We
do not like being pushed into Microsoft products which is what
happens when one buys a PC today.
MTC-00021973
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel Microsoft has improperly applied pressure to competitors
in the past to impede sales of the competitors. I have carefully
reviewed the Revised Final Judgement and find it a remarkable good
document which will resolve problems in the past. I find one problem
with the findings of the TC members and them not being able to
testify by deposition in court. After all the TC members are or
ought to be the experts on any violation by Microsoft and therefore
allowed to make depositions on behalf of the plaintifs to the court.
MTC-00021974
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello. I do not think that this settlement is fair to companies
who provide computers in the educational industry. This gives
Microsoft the power to place any PC brand they want in the schools
which means that they can give their allies a boost over there
enemies in the educational arena. Apple Computer s Macintosh brand
will be crushed by the Microsoft giant allowing them to gain even
more power in the market. They must be broken up and have strict
regulations placed on them. You must do this for the sake of
innovation to create a better future for technology and man kind.
Thank You.
MTC-00021975
From: thomas. desmond @usa.xerox.com @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop the insanity. Let s settle and get on with things.
The States are a joke. New York and California should quit and maybe
it would help with some jobs.
MTC-00021976
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am fed up with this unfounded and ridiculous lawsuit.
Microsoft has done nothing to harm consumers.
The only entities harmed by Microsoft are those unable to
compete with it s far superior products. In my mind this is not a
basis for a lawsuit it is the way competition is supposed to be. I
ve read that the states pushing the lawsuit want a lower cost
product available to consumers. That s odd because 1) pricing is up
to the producer of the product. Why don t they tell car makers to
lower the prices of their popular SUVs?
Because it s insane that s why and 2) I have never heard anyone
say I didn t buy a copy of Windows because it was just too darned
expensive! The lawsuit should be settled and put behind us. It s not
in the interest of the people or our economy and only serves the
sore losers that cannot compete against Microsoft. Hey I have an
idea! Why don t the aggressors in this lawsuit go after Walmart!
KMart couldn t compete against Walmart so obviously Walmart must be
guilty of something!
MTC-00021977
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a brutal monopolistic organization that just
happens to make the best product for the industry. Restricting
innovation is not what this country need right now. Allowing other
companies to freely compete in the global market is a must. How to
ballance these is the task at hand. Good luck with that one.
MTC-00021978
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft may have some undedesirable business practices but
they have contributed much the advancement of PC software. Microsoft
pulled off what everyone really wanted a software platform that
pulled software use together. Now that they have accomplished this
other vendors cry foul. I don t like or want government interferance
with this pracitce of competion. In my opinion it is not governments
place to interfere with business. This trial undermines the markets
free choice & good old American competative drive to become the
biggest & best that you can achieve.
MTC-00021979
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If Microsoft is a monopoly what about AOL? AOL has been giving
out free disks and CD s for years now! And was not Netscape a
monopoly too?
MTC-00021980
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern i believe that this has gone on way too
long as if we didnt have enough problems with our economy this past
year especially since september.11.lets all do what was handed down
from the higher courts and be done with it i will always believe in
Microsoft and company s that
[[Page 27109]]
follow the same traditional way of doing business in our great
country.Let us not bicker with lengthly new alligations or try to
reverse the decisions that were agreed upon but let us move forward
and look at the whole picture so we may learn from this.After this
long battle lets move forward not backward s.God bless America.
MTC-00021981
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Who is John Galt? Do you remember AT&T-Phone services
were good then. Do not permit those who cant try to stop those who
can. Every High Tech corporation had an equal opportunity to develop
and beat Microsoft at their game but the mamby pamby s couldn t
compete so they turned to the poloticians. This puffed them up and
they went for it-Let s not get Microsoft and screw up the
whole world. No operating system other than Microsoft can come close
to what the world wants. Stop wasting tax payers dollars and leave
the market sort itself out. I object to this frivolity!
MTC-00021982
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i think for once the government has been fair with microsoft.
the decision that was recently passed down is very encouraging that
the right thing will be done for companies who are either ahead of
their time or just plainly protecting what is theirs from others who
see an easy profit. it is not in just microsoft s interest that a
decision of the sort was passed down but for the good of every
business. no one deserves to be treated in the fashion that
microsoft was treated in the past.i am glad that period of time is
over -everytime microsoft s shares went down so did the shares of a
lot of other companies . it caused a horrible chain reaction-those
who said they were doing it for some good were not telling the
truth. people look up to that company when it started to go down in
price people got very nervous-i don t want to see that happen again-
it serves no purpose thank you
MTC-00021983
From: Dave Crossley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams,
My name is Dave Crossley. I'm a programmer from Charleston,
South Carolina. I'm writing to tell you that I believe that the
proposed settlement with Microsoft is a BAD idea. It does not
provide the remedies necessary to protect society from the
monopolistic threat that Microsoft represents. I can state from
experience that Microsoft wields enormous clout in our industry, and
I will also state that they have a very bad reputation for both
honesty and security.
Please reconsider the current settlement. The earlier breakup
plan was a great idea, although I would suggest that the company
should be severed into four, and not two parts. Those parts would be
Operating System, Applications, Development tools and Internet.
As with Standard Oil and AT&T in the past, the breakup of
Microsoft, in my opinion, will be beneficial to society as a whole
and will have the additional benefit of protecting freedom of speech
by preventing one company from controlling the channels of
communication.
Thank You for Your Time,
Dave Crossley
Programmer
Carepoint, Inc.
Charleston, SC
[email protected]
MTC-00021984
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30pm
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,
Nathan S. Ferris
5902 Westchester St,
Alexandria, VA 22310-1123
MTC-00021985
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You probably will not like nor use this message but I am glad to
express myself. After 20 years of being at the mercy of Microsoft
and watching and being involved in their high-handed tactics for
doing away with the competition-an usually unfairly-I am
disgusted at the hand slap they got. When a company can completely
dominate an industry because they have deep pockets it goes against
everything we Americans believe in. And who is Microsoft and her
allies kidding-most innovation and competitiveness in American
business comes from small business not large money-hungry
corporations.
Give me a break! Microsoft as a hero? Come on! They have been
stifling and killing the competition for years. Many of my favorite
programs and/or features of common applications have either
disappeared or become almost non-entities because of Microsoft s
agressive competitive stance and deep pockets. In their place we
have Microsoft telling us what we want-not usually what we
need. Score: 0 for free enterprise 1 for monopolies
MTC-00021986
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should be split into numberous pieces this so that no
one company or man Bill Gates can have the power or influence that
Microsoft and its owner currently have.
MTC-00021987
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There should never have been a case against Microsoft. Microsoft
has created a useful (although not perfect) product and has marketed
that product well. I think their innovation should not be punished
with government watchdogs or regulations because in the end the
consumer is the one who pays.
MTC-00021988
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the settlement in U.S.
vs Microsoft. Not only should this case be settled now it should
never have been litigated in the first instance. The irony of this
is that the case was initiated ostensibly to protect consumers. What
a farce! Far more of OUR tax money was spent by the government in
prosecuting this case than could have ever been saved on behalf of
the consumer even in the wildest dreams of the bureaucratic do-
gooders. Moreover anyone with a scintilla of common sense (and there
are many of us) realizes that this misguided case against one of the
great companies of the world contributed in part to one of the
greatest stock market declines since 29. Plain and simple putting
Microsoft in a funk with this ALLEGED antitrust case caused negative
reverberations throughout the market affecting crybabies like Sun
Microsystems Scott McNealy et. al. who sparked the government s
knee-jerk reaction in the first instance. This antitrust suit cost
the American consumer millions of dollars to prosecute and far more
than that in stock market losses which were part of the fallout from
the government s case against Microsoft. The bottom line is the
American public does not need government intervention in cases of
this nature. If corporations feel put upon by competitors let them
seek relief by paying for their own litigation. The most appropriate
expression for these corporation whiners (and I have stock in some
of them) is If you can t run with the big dogs stay up on the porch
Approving this settlement now will prevent further bloodletting
of the American consumer through more misguided attempts by the
govern
MTC-00021989
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27110]]
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Innovation comes from free market place not one run by the
goverment.If yiu froce crippling sanctions on Microsoft will go back
to the stone age. Most people use Microsoft for a reason its
affordable on any person budget it consumer friendly easy to use.
All the States should be forced to settle. In my home town nobody
can understand why the goverment toke after Microsoft in the 1st
place
Herb Holm
2821 Fairfield street
Eureka Ca. 95501-3524
MTC-00021990
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30pm
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,
Nathan S. Ferris
5902 Westchester St,
Alexandria, VA 22310-1123
MTC-00021993
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I also believe the settlement is a reasonable
compromise.......this has been dragging on for toooo long..toooooo
long...
MTC-00021995
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The original remedy proposed by judge Jackson was the correct
one. Whatever benefits Microsoft may have once brought to consumers
by way of its market strength it has long since erased by forcing
competing products and companies companies with true technological
innovation out of markets and/or out of business with its
monopolistic and predatory practices. Microsoft exerts enough clout
all by itself it doesn t need the helping hand of government through
a symbolic settlement to further bolster its dominant industry
position. I urge any and all parties having a role in this decision
to reject the proposed settlement and to divide this company to help
restore and revitalize the U.S. software industry.
MTC-00021996
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept this settlement. The extreme requests of the non-
settling states are not in the best interests of consumers only
competitors of Microsoft. Please put an end to this enormous waste
of taxpayer dollars at the state and federal level and lets move on
to more important issues of our nation.
Thank you.
MTC-00021997
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. When you attack Microsoft you are hurting the
economy putting us out of work and harming our leadership position
in the world. The stockmarket crash began at the same time Janet
Reno went after Microsoft and it s time for this to come to an end.
As September 11th more tha adequately communicated Microsoft is not
the enemy!
Sincerely
Ronald J. Natale
Bedford NH. 03110
MTC-00021998
From: PZ Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. As someone who
relies on open-source, non-microsoft software both professionally
and personally, I am appalled that no effort is being made to stop
Microsoft's monopolistic attempts to destroy better software, such
as Apache. -
PZ Myers, Ph.D.
(320) 589-6343
Division of Science & Math 2135, 2390 Science
University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN 56267 http://homepage.mac.com/myers/
MTC-00021999
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement. The suit was never to the benefit of
users. The widespread use of pc's and the internet was facilitated
by the standardization brought about by technical/business dominance
of Microsoft
MTC-00022000
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is there enough that you can do to Microsoft to make it a nicer
company? I don't know that's not my place. The only thing that I can
do is to not purchase their software (if possible). I find that
after using MS Windows Macintosh Linux and UNIX systems for the
almost 20 years that I've been in the industry MS Windows is the
most unstable of the bunch. I'm not a software vendor but I have had
experience with many different types of software (hospital industry)
and it seems that the fewer types of software that is installed on a
Windows PC the better it runs. That's fine if you live in Nirvana
Utopia.
But I live in Real World USA. People can not have 6 different
machines sitting on there desk tweaked to run a specific application
because one application needs version A of a DLL file and a
different application needs version B of the same DLL.
Competition::I remember always hearing people comment about wanting
to come up with a great software idea and then be purchased by
Microsoft... Neat.
Retire a millionaire no worries. What could happen if you didn't
sell your idea to MS. Seems that they would purchase a competitor's
product stamp Microsoft on it and then sell it. The product could be
a piece of crap but since it has Microsoft on the label people would
buy it because it would interface better with other Microsoft
applications. Right now I'm faced with vendors that are changing
their server-based requirements from Novell to Microsoft. Why I
don't know I'm not one of their programmers.
And I feel nervous about it. Why should I feel nervous about the
NOS a vendor wants to use. NT (and other MS apps) has been and will
continue to be the target of hackers crackers and virus creators.
I've only had one virus where I work and it came through an MS email
program (worm). I've also only had one virus at my home computer. At
the time of the virus I was using Windows 3.11. I have been using a
Macintosh for about 5-6 years now and h
MTC-00022001
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is this Microsoft compromise a joke? If that is the proposed
solution you might as well save the taxpayers a ton of money and not
even attempt to do anything to Microsoft. I realize that a person
with $80+ billion has a lot of influence on the American justice
system but that does not give him the rights to mandate to every
single PC manufacturer and PC buyer what we should be using. The
only thing this compromise accomplishes is still giving Mr. Gates
his money but also costing us the end-users more by having to
purchase another option . If you truly want to make the industry
fair and best for economy you would force Microsoft to actually have
a choice. Let us buy a PC without shoving Windows and Office down
our throats. Let us buy it with a non-Microsoft OS and not have to
pay for Windows. Give a choice of one or the other or no OS at all.
That is truly what the industry wants and needs to see.
Your compromise will in now way punish Microsoft at all. They
still get their money. They still have their OS and Office on all
PCs. At the very least something should be done to slow down the
release of new OSes. It costs American business a small fortune to
[[Page 27111]]
keep up with a new OS every two years. Not to mention the IT
professionals like myself that are trying to complete certifications
it is nearly impossible to keep up with the new OS changes unless
you spend $10 000 every two years to go to a boot camp to get your
certification. Or even just to get familiar with the new changes in
the OS. It is a tech support person s nightmare to keep changing
OSes every two years. Thank you for you time and I truly hope that
more comes out of this case than the simple slap on the wrist that
is proposed.
MTC-00022002
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:30pm
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,
David Finley
466 Ellen Avenue SW
New Philadelphia, OH 44663
MTC-00022004
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:31pm
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,
Randolph Sieg
144 Knight Estates Circle
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526-6544
MTC-00022005
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I have the following concerns about the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
1. It does not alter the overwhelming presence of Microsoft in
the computer industry. For instance, even though a recent PCmagazine
article rated the corel suite of office software as at least equal
to the best they ever tested, they had a subtle warning at the end
of the article warning about "compatibility". What they
meant, but dared not openly say is that Microsoft proprietary file
formats have become the defacto standard and no one can afford to
ignore that, and it no longer matters how good the competition is.
The market forces we rely on to provide for the best available
products are not working. This marketplace is broken. The proposed
settlement does not change the marketplace, therefore the
government's settlement fails to provide the relief intended by
congress.
2. The ownership of the only commercially viable OS gives the
owner of that franchise a terribly strong base from which to win in
any application software market that they choose to enter, whether
it be office suites, browsers, compression software or whatever.
They can purposely build in obstacles that prevent the operation of
competing software while smoothing the interaction of their own
appliations with their O/S. The proposed remedy does not alter that
fact, a handful of "umpires" cannot watch thousands of
players. The government has no mechanism in place that enforces this
agreement, and it should recognize that this agreement is
unenforceable and therefore worthless.
Yours,
Colin Murphy
3309 Haskins Drive
Belmont, CA 94002
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022006
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:33pm
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,
Leon McDaniel
1280 Island Drive
Merritt Island, FL 32952
MTC-00022007
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:32pm
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,
Barbara Ward
Box 404
Carrizozo, NM 88301
MTC-00022008
From: Doc Franklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: Citizen viewpoint
As a private citizen as well as a business user of Microsoft
products and services:
1] I am constantly being harrased to pay Microsoft more servcice
fees;
2] Constantly being threatened with "loss of my email
files via destruction by Microsoft, if I do not subscribe to their
latest fee-based marketing blitz";
3] Mysterious appearance of an "Adult Content"
Microsoft warning screen each time I turn on my computer,
immediately following my criticism of their policy.
Microsoft is an arrogant Monopoly, that deserves to be
prosecuted by DOJ.
Sincerely,
Lee Franklin, Boulder Colorado
MTC-00022009
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough! Yes Microsoft is a monopoly and yes they were
proactive in the growth of their business (like most companies). But
if it were not for Microsoft the PC would not be where it is today.
If you left it up to Apple or IBM you would be moving a lot
slower and at MORE cost! I am also very curious to what the economy
and stock market would do if this was settled. I believe that if AOL
or Netscape could get where MSFT is today by doing the same things
maybe more or less they would!
Settle it enough is enough! Thank you.
[[Page 27112]]
MTC-00022010
From: Jay Riddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The currently proposed settlement (if you1ll excuse the
expression) sucks. I have heard it compared to finding the Tobacco
Companies guilty of years of lies and collusion and penalizing them
by making them give away free cigarettes to children.
Please, address the REAL issue and FORCE Microsoft to change
it1s predatory behavior.
Thank you,
Jay Riddell
MTC-00022011
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wholeheartedly support the settlement agreement in US vs
Microsoft. While it is not perfect it does provide competitive
avenues for other companies while providing Microsoft the means to
continue to provide products and services as it has. Microsoft has
helped to make our technology-driven society and this settlement
will encourage continued development in the technology sectors that
will strengthen our economy.
MTC-00022012
From: Michael Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
How does it feel to be used and abused?
That's what AOHELL and Netscape are doing to the justice
department. If netscape and AOHELL want to be as good as microsoft
let them build a better browser.If the complaint is that internet
explorer is free well, DUH so is netscape
Netscape has NOT improved it's browser since AOL got hold of it,
and I think that AOL doesn't have the techinacal knowledge or
expertise to do so either. AOL'S plan must be to keep taking
microsoft to court and try to stay compative that way. In the long
and short run we, all of us lose that way.
MTC-00022013
From: Chip Moore
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been quiet on this topic for some time, but enough is
enough. I have worked in systems for over twenty years. I am not
employed by Microsoft, although I am a share holder, 100 shares I
think. I do not have my Masters or Doctorate. I am just a system
analyst I support hundreds of computers. I have spoken to numerous
other analysts and support professionals. Almost all of them
universally say that there is no way within their organization to
mandate what browser an employee uses. There never has been nor will
there ever be. All you have to do is go to www.netscape.com and
download the current browser. I have done it. I have tried it out. I
do not think it is that good a product. It is two complex to
effectively configure and use. I do not like it.
If Netscape aka AOL thinks that they have been wronged it is
there own fault as they have done little advertising in the last
five years and it has become a non issue, like 8 tracks, and
records. The Netscape purchase was a bad decision on AOLs part and
if any one should be complaining, it is users who should complain
about how Netscape is forced down your throat. Here are two
examples, I got a CD with manuals from CISCO system several years
ago and you could not even install the product to use until you put
Netscape on your machine, is that monopolistic, further I am a
Verizon DSL customer and they require Netscape on their DSL
installation. My question is I do not see Microsoft requiring you to
run Internet Explorer to do things on their web site. It appears
that AOL is doing the exact same thing that they accuse Microsoft of
doing.
Finally, I am not happy with the AOL instant messenger, here is
a service that allows you to chat, nothing more and they expect you
to pay to do it. I can understand that you need an internet
connection, which I have, but why should I pay 9.99 a month to chat.
Again this seems predatory and monopolistic. From my perspective AOL
does many of the same things they accuse Microsoft of doing AOL just
lacks the capital to be able to carry it off that Microsoft does.
If the Department of Justice and the Attorney Generals were
sincere about resolving this case, they would talk to their own IT
staffs and some major companies like IBM and see how they came to
their browser decision and see if there is any way to enforce a
standard. The answer is probably no there is no way to enforce a
standard, so get over it, close the case, and if you want to spend
some more money spend it looking at AOL, it will not be as flashy
but you will find a lot of the same issues.
But really enough is enough
MTC-00022014
From: James Dillon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Anti-Trust case settelment
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am a working computer professional and have been for 20 years.
I have seen the rise of Microsoft from a small company in the 80's
to the giant it is today.
Most of their products, while adequate, are by no means the
state of the art, or very secure. I have witnessed the way they
obscure details and modify code to prevent competing programs from
performing correctly. I have seen this from the 80's (DR-DOS) to the
early 90's (WordPerfect, Novell) and in the mid 90's with Netscape
(Navigator) and Sun Microsystems (Java). The original settlement
would split Microsoft into two separate companies. While that would
be good, I would prefer to see it split into three separate
companies: one for Operating Systems, one for Applications, and the
other for Programming Tools. I also believe the undocumented
Microsoft API's must be published. Document file formats (DOC, XLS,
ect.) must be standardized. Internet protocols (TCP/IP) must remain
open and un-modified.
The true sprit of open competition and fair play demands a
honest evaluation of the proposed settlement. I believe it does
little to curb Microsoft's monopoly actions, much as the consent
decree did in the 90's. The American public needs a strong and
intelligent DOJ to truly level the competitive playing field.
The current proposed settlement is bad for a number of reasons:
It does not redress the past anti-competitive actions of Microsoft,
it does little to prevent them from doing it again, and will
ultimately allow them to further their stranglehold on the
information economy.
Sincerely Yours,
James Patrick Dillon
850 Rosdale #59
Capitola CA 95010
MTC-00022015
From: Martin Fenton
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlepeople:
Enough is enough . It is way past time to closeout the Microsoft
litigation. Antitrust regulation is supposed to be aimed at
protecting the unwitting consumer who, ostensibly, is being
plundered by the rapacious giant corporation.
As a regular user of computers and as one who runs a company
that would be lost without them, I can only see benefit from our
dealings with Microsoft and we have never had a problem integrating
non-Microsoft product into our system if costs and needs so
dictated. Microsoft has certainly fought to make themselves
indispensable, but in so doing they have allowed the user an ease of
communication that was not possible before.
It would seem to me that Microsoft has been a benefactor to me,
to us, to the country and to all those in the world that seek to
learn for themselves and to communicate with others.
The continuing harassment of this company becomes increasingly
petty . . . for the judge to turn down an offer by the
company to provide $ 1 billion of computers to classrooms is absurd.
Martin Fenton
MTC-00022016
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:33pm
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.
[[Page 27113]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bryan McKay
3610 W Ethan Crossing Ln
Tucson, AZ 85741
MTC-00022017
From: Pauline Schwager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We were asked to comment on the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft case. I read the complaint, which took almost two hours,
and I must admit that I didn't, until now, know the extent of the
complaint. It was quite an eye-opener.
I am in favor of free trade-the right of anyone to
lawfully pursue business to his advantage and to the benefit of the
society at large. I believe competition is good, that it benefits
everyone, and that any entity that restricts that lawful competition
must be censured and prevented from continuing that policy.
I read the proposed settlement and it seems quite fair. So if it
is approval you are seeking for the settlement, I must say that I
approve. Thank you for the opportunity of allowing the public to
comment.
Pauline Schwager
MTC-00022018
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:32pm
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,
wayne schafer
1117 sunlight circle
concord, CA 94518-1912
MTC-00022019
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:33pm
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,
Charlie Angal
2469 Greenbrook Drive
Medford, OR 97504-8321
MTC-00022020
From: Tim Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that it is ridiculous that a company can have such
actions against other companies, and the consumers. Then get off by
doing what they do to promote themselves in the academic world in
the first place. Which is giving away products that they make and
want to have the students feel comfortable with then and lock the
students into the use of the Microsoft products. This is what
happens all the time for the company to promote themselves.
Microsoft can say that they are paying millions of dollars for a
settlement that mainly contains the price of software that to
Microsoft only costs 35 cents or so per CD. They are not coming
anywhere close to the value of what they say that they are going to
be actually penalized for their now reconfirmed (by the courts)
predatory business practices.
The use of "Innovation" by Microsoft has become
their rallying cry. However the general public has only been lulled
into believing that Microsoft has come up with there ideas, when the
ideas and practices have been around long before. They are just now
gracing the "Windows World" with things that they bought
up with companies or plain "ol just decided to use.
They should innovate a "reasonable and fair"
Microsoft.
MTC-00022021
From: Stephen Cronen-Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a senior postdoctoral research associate in the Computer
Science department at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and
am concerned about ways in which the proposed final judgment does
not appear to restrict future anticompetitive practices by
Microsoft. I am submitting these concerns according to provisions in
the Tunney Act before the comment period ends on January 28, 2002.
The apparent fact that the proposed final judgment does not
obligate Microsoft to release information about file formats is a
very serious omission. As a Macintosh and Netscape Communicator user
at home, I ran into Microsoft's past anticompetitive use of file
formats last year, when I could not look at digitized photographs
sent to me by a relative. It turns out that Microsoft invented a
proprietary file format for image attachments to email that could
only be decoded by their Outlook and other expensive email software.
Their free software, Microsoft Outlook, and Netscape's free
competing Messenger software (part of Netscape Communicator) that I
used a at home at the time could not read the format. After studying
resources on the World Wide Web, and despite my capabilties as a
computer scientist, I came to the conclusion that there was simply
no way to view the images that I was sent on my Apple Macintosh
computer, without personally reverse engineering Microsoft's
proprietary file format and writing my own decoder, which I did not
have the time (100's of hours, probably) to do. There are plenty of
completely workable and largely standardized formats for attaching
images to email messages (MIME and JPEG, for instance), and it seems
clear to me that I was kept from viewing the pictures of my distant
cousins by Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Since the proposed
final judgment appears not to address this issue of proprietary file
formats, I find it unacceptable.
Thank you for our time,
Stephen Cronen-Townsend
Greenfield, Massachusetts
MTC-00022022
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:34pm
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,
Joyce Fenrich
12101 Bass Lake Road Chardon, OH 44024-8405
MTC-00022023
From: Martin Hechtman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
A slap on the wrist is not the way to get the Microsoft
management to be fair and
[[Page 27114]]
honest. They will continue to beaproblem for other development
companies AND THE COMPUTER USERS
MTC-00022024
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
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,
Doris Hessler
166 Frazier Street
Brockport, NY 14420-1747
MTC-00022025
From: Dave Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:39pm
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 brief note to let you know that I am a co-signer of
Dan Kegel's open letter on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I
agree with the problems identified there, and believe that
addressing them is crucial to the ongoing economic success of the
information technology industry.
Regards,
David D. Lewis
David D. Lewis, Ph.D.
858 W. Armitage Ave., #296
Chicago, IL 60614 USA
ph. 773-975-7248; fax 773 442-0262
[email protected]
http://www.DavidDLewis.com
MTC-00022026
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
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,
Bud Trill
1771 MacDonnell Dr.
Palm Harbor, FL 34684-2345
MTC-00022027
From: Roselma L. Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
Subject: settlement
Please, this has gone on long enough. . . can you not
work this out for a settlement????
Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Roselma Quinn
MTC-00022028
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I consider the proposed settlement for the Microsoft anti-trust
case to be a farce. There are many flaws contained in the proposed
settlement and some would act to actually help Microsoft and not
punish them for their tactics and past misdeeds. Most notable is the
part where Microsoft would donate used computers and donate
software- how incredibly galling!- which enables them to
indoctrinate another generation of consumers to use Microsoft
products. I'm sure the many responses you've received list the
entire litany of problems with the settlement as it stands now. But
the settlement as it stands is purely and simply wrong.
If you want a settlement with some teeth, something that will
make an impact, consider this: Microsoft can donate computers and
software to poorer schools, just make sure they are the products of
their COMPETITORS. Whether it be iMacs or PCs running LINUX, this
would go far into countering the negative effects caused by the many
years of Microsoft's illegal activities. Besides, they're sitting on
$32B so a $1B fine is 3% of their cash reserves- that is a very
light punishment.
Thank you,
Cameron Moore
The opinions expressed above are my own and are not those of my
employer.
Cameron Moore, Ph.D.
Engineering Scientist/5DX Systems Engineer
Automated Test Group
Agilent Technologies, Loveland, CO
970.679.5926(V)/5969(F)
MTC-00022029
From: Abrahamsen, Barry
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing to express my dismay at the way the Federal
Government's case against Microsoft has ended up. I have worked in
the information technology industry since 1966 and Microsoft's
behavior has been very detrimental to the health and competitiveness
of the IT industry.
Microsoft is not simply an "efficient competitor,"
it is a business that cannot, and has not, tolerated any
competition, almost without regard to the size of the competing
business, in the markets Microsoft is interested in. Microsoft has
repeatedly said it believes it has done nothing wrong, with the
singleminded conviction of a business that has only one goal in
mind, to dominate an entire industry. Microsoft has shown that it
will thumb its nose at the mild remedies imposed on it in the past,
and it will continue to do this in the future, if strict and
enforceable remedies are not imposed this time. Leaving Microsoft
intact as a company was certainly a mistake.
My belief is that people who are supporting Microsoft have a
vested financial interest in the company and their products, there
is no ethical or legal consideration on their part. Microsoft still
believes no one has the right to "interfere" with how it
does business and will continue its monopoly behavior in the
future-limiting choice, controlling prices and controlling
access to the Internet, if allowed. Their schemes for controlling
who uses their operating systems under what conditions and their
schemes that involve the .NET business model, show the scope of
their ambition.
We have little choice today (and businesses have almost no
choice for desktop operating systems and applications) and we will
have absolutely no choice in the future if something drastic is not
done.
Barry Abrahamsen
Seattle, Washington
MTC-00022030
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement against the Microsoft monopoly is
inadequate to either punish them or to insure that they won't
continue their illegal conduct. Please push Microsoft to be much
more open to the public about what their software is doing on our
machines.
John Atkeson
3959 Persimmon Drive, apt 103
Fairfax Va. 22031
703 426 0121
MTC-00022031
From: Allan Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having read much of the commentary (both pro and con) about the
proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case, I do NOT
think that the proposed settlement is in the public's best
interests. [email protected]
MTC-00022032
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:37pm
[[Page 27115]]
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,
neal swanson
313 ashley oak lane
lake dallas, TX 75065
MTC-00022033
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
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,
MILDRED PARKER
5071 NORTH SHORE DR
DELTON, MI 49046
MTC-00022034
From: paul wilzbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ is NOT protecting the Public's interest with the
proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. Until a pc can be shipped
without a Microsoft operating system and without economic
retaliation from Microsoft, the technology industry will be held
hostage to Microsoft's monopoly.
I will be writing my state's Congressional representatives to
explore the Tunney Act to help protect us from the DOJ's monumental
sellout.
There is no other way I can view this.
Paul Wilzbach
MTC-00022035
From: Steven K. Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement is not sufficient to keep Microsoft from
continuing its predatory practices with regards to companies that
compete against it. Without further restrictions Microsoft will
continue to incorporate more functionality within the OS itself
strangling any competition. As a monopoly allows Microsoft to
continue producing low-quality, bloated, over-priced software that
benefits no one except them. Sufficient judgements would be to split
Microsoft into two companies (operating system and applications),
open the source of the operating system itself, force Microsoft to
document all application programming interfaces and file formats, or
all of the aforementioned remedies.
Sincerely,
Steven K. Sharp
10705 Matinal Circle
San Diego, CA 92127
MTC-00022036
From: Peckinpaugh, Brett (Brett)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to make sure my name was counted, Dan Kegel is sending
in an excellent document explaining many problems in the current
Microsoft Settlement. I agree wholeheartedly with his assesment and
would like to see it followed up on. Please read what he sends in
and use this information to change the settlement.
Brett Peckinpaugh
Denver Colorado
MTC-00022037
From: Jay Gordon
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The proposed settlement does nothing to hinder MS's monopoly
power in the marketplace. Penfold's breakup plan was the real
solution. MS has historically shown a willingness to ignore and
evade behavioral sanctions. The OS marketplace can easily support
more than 1 system. True competition would greatly increase the
amount of true innovation by software companies.
Thank your for allowing my input.
Yours, JG
Jay Gordon
732-888-4895
[email protected]
MTC-00022038
From: Rita R. Head
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms Hesse:
Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to
consumers and businesses, and it provides opportunities for other
software companies to develop programs for the Windows platform, as
well. The provisions of the settlement, worked out with one of the
nation's top mediators will be good for consumers, business, the
technology industry and the economy as a whole On behalf of the
Rantoul Area Chamber of Commerce, representing over 350 businesses
within our area, I want to express our full support of the
Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys General for their
efforts to finally put an end to this case and agree to a settlement
that is in our nation's best interest.
Sincerely,
Rita R. Head
Executive Director
MTC-00022039
From: Larry Gozrulak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
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. But, with their enormous
monopoly gained resources they are able to buy settlements 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. Microsoft is the only large hi tech company to grow
their earnings per share EACH quarter in 2001 and to increase their
stock price by 30% BECAUSE they are a monopoly and not subject to
pricing pressures. Microsoft's arrogance is magnified in these times
when Americans are making sacrifices and responding with
unprecedented patriotism to threats against our country and threats
against our inherited legal system which protects us all and 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,
Larry Gozrulak
Lawrence F. Gozrulak
Technical Services Manager
Latin America Operations
Enterprise Services
Mission Towers 1, USCA28-602
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1203
Phone: 408-276-8759
m i c r o s y s t e m sFax: 408-276-8750
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022040
From: MARY D PUTTY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Department of Justice:
I believe that the suit against Microsoft is nothing more than
welfare for Netscape and
[[Page 27116]]
others. Please stop this suit right now. Microsoft has suffered
enough. I am a computer user and if Microsoft wants to give me
something, I appreciate it. I am glad that Internet Explorer comes
with my computer's operating system. If I wanted Netscape, I could
download it, but I don't.
Thank you,
Mary D. Putty
San Antonio, Texas
MTC-00022041
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
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,
Adelyn Wright
2211 E. Washington, #44
Pasadena, CA 91104
MTC-00022042
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:39pm
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,
Patricia Joppien
4575 Thompson Rd.
Mulberry, FL 33860-9516
MTC-00022043
From: Ian Breheny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to say that I strongly feel the settlement terms
proposed last year are not only very inadequate but actually
strengthen Microsoft by easing their path into the education market,
one of the few markets they don't already own, lock , stock and
barrel. The terms are fundamentally flawed, because they provide no
meaningful remedy to the offense of illegal monopolistic practice;
indeed, they ratify Microsoft's illegaly-gained monopoly status. The
DoJ needs to realize that the settlement they proposed will not end
the Microsoft battles, and work to achieve a more just settlement.
Ian Breheny
MTC-00022044
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:40pm
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,
Steven mungle
PO3233
Placida, FL 33946
MTC-00022045
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43pm
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:
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," states the AOCTP, "not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen."
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
Please do your part and stop this insane and unconstitutional
harassment of legitimate American business.
Respectfully,
Roy M. Collins
3340 Carlton Road
Cumming, Georgia 30041
MTC-00022046
From: Edens, Jim
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement is more than fair, and no more
time, expense and exorbitant legal fees to trial lawyers should be
expended in this case.
If AOL/Netscape were to spend the same amount they are spending
on lawyers to improve and make their product and service offerings
more competitive, the consumer would be much better served.
Jim Edens
[email protected]
- QUOTE OF THE DAY -"The true meaning of life is to plant
trees, under whose shade you do not expect to
sit."-Nelson Henderson
MTC-00022047
From: Jon Krueger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern: I would like to express my analysis of
the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I believe it is completely
unsatisfactory.
1. It falls far short of what would be needed to discourage
continued criminal behavior by defendant. It is a "slap on the
wrist" that defendant will shrug off just as defendant has
done in the past.
2. It fails to remedy the cost and damage defendant's conduct
has caused consumers, competitors, and the industry.
3. It fails to establish a competitive market for innovation and
value. The proposed remedies are entirely insufficient.
4. It leaves defendant free and indeed with a clear incentive to
continue its criminal behavior, to continue to create and exercise
monopoly power against the interest of all other parties. It leaves
defendant free to extend its monopoly to other markets.
5. It leaves defendant free to continue to keep secret
interfaces that lock out aftermarket solutions, cooperative
solutions, and compatible solutions, thus depriving customers of
substantial value and opportunity.
6. It fails to incorporate remedies designed by knowledgeable
sources in the industry.
7. It offers numerous loopholes, weak enforcement, and
insufficient remedies. It will do nothing to remedy defendant's
conduct.
Thank you,
Jon Krueger
5631 Gatetree Circle
Pleasanton, CA 94566
MTC-00022048
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27117]]
Date: 1/24/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
Althouh my knowledge of the proposed Microsoft Judgement is
limited, in the final analysis it seems to give Microsoft more
opportunities to expand its markets and no punishment for its anti-
trust activities. In part I believe this because the little I do
know comes from open source development community who feel that
innovation will be thwarted and the rights of the people will be
subverted. Please re-think this judgement. Computing is in its
infancy and Microsoft is simply the richest of the innovators, not
the best of them.
Thanks for your time.
Paul DiBiase
29 Sawyer Street
Portland, ME
MTC-00022049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:38pm
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 Wood
246 Cervantes
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-1208
MTC-00022050
From: Roj Snellman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am disappointed that our Justice Department and legal system
appear to be selling out to corporate influence including lobbyists
and corporate funded politicians. This is contrary to the freedom to
succeed and fail required for the survival of our great competitive
capitalist system. There is no end in sight to this quagmire. Only
the Justice Department can lead the country out of this nightmare.
Please consider the Justice Department resources wasted to date and
future resources required as this political nightmare drags out over
the next 10 years. The nonsense of the basic arguments supported by
the Justice Department defy reason:
1. Microsoft is harming consumers by over charging for Windows:
The facts prove that Windows is successful because it continues to
be the least expensive operating system and provides more capability
from the customers perspective.
2. Microsoft is harming consumers by adding new features to
Windows: Successive Windows releases continue to add more features
without increasing the price. Case in point, less than 7 years ago
consumers purchased DOS, Windows, dial-up communications software,
Internet Protocol communications software, disk management software,
Internet browser software, word processing software, email client
software, data exchange software, ... Everyone agrees that these
separate software packages cost thousands of dollars and were very
difficult to install and use. Microsoft customers demanded Microsoft
add these capabilities fully integrated with Windows, bug free, and
without increasing the price. Does the Justice Department dispute
the fact the Microsoft's customers demanded these capabilities?
Continuous innovation is essential for the survival of many
industries. Imagine purchasing a new car then after you drove it
home installing a 3rd party trunk, radio, CD changer, speaker
system, carpet, 16" high tech wheels, air conditioning, ... If
our auto industry stops innovating for just a couple of years
Americans will buy all their cars from Asia and Europe. If the
Justice Department slows the innovation of our software industry for
the next several years Americans will buy all their software from
Asia and Europe.
3. Microsoft's Windows platform is not open to competition. SUN
and Apple force their customers to purchase their proprietary
operating systems and hardware. Their hardware is not open to
competitive operating systems. Their software will not run on
competitive hardware. They charge consumers more for their products
than Microsoft. Their platforms are not open to competition. This is
one of the top 3 root causes of Sun's and Apple's failure in the
marketplace.
For example SUN and Apple do not allow 3rd parties to develop
video accelerator cards for their platforms. Their are over 10
companies that sell video accelerator cards for the Windows
platform. The prices of these cards range from $80 to $350. The top
end cards are extremely profitable and cost much more that Windows.
Microsoft encourages and helps 3rd party software and hardware
developers create new products for the Windows platform. The market
for Windows platform 3rd party hardware and software is over $100
billion. This accomplishment is unparalleled by any other company or
industry. Summary
Microsoft does not control technology, they are just one of the
world's leading companies and will fail when they slow innovation. A
good analogy is that Microsoft is riding the waves of technology.
The waves of technology are controlled by nature, not companies or
countries. Microsoft is in a very precarious position. When
Microsoft looses customer focus, agility, or vision they will wipe-
out off the latest wave or miss the next wave.
Our innovative technology industry will fail if the Justice
Department continues to siphon it's momentum. Companies that focus
on the Justice Department instead their customers are doomed to
failure. As the Justice Department continues down this path Intel,
Dell and every successful high technology company will be in it's
sights. The Justice Department is afraid to dismiss this case and
address the real threats to our great country. The Justice
Department's failure to demonstrate the leadership required to do
what is right is forcing every American to pay a high price.
Roj Snellman
[email protected]
321-779-0757
MTC-00022051
From: Master Wizard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't think the proposed settlement goes far enough. Microsoft
has forced many small companies into bankruptcy by leveraging their
monopoly on the desktop. The proposed settlement does nothing to
stop this practice. This settlement is a bad idea. I am against the
proposed settlement!
Edward W. Rouse
MTC-00022052
From: MPJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MicroSoft has abused other companies every chance it has had. I
propose that a few laws that are not designed to be punitive, could
have great effect on preventing companies from destroying competion,
not only in the case of an unruly company like MicroSoft, but even
with companies who could dominate a segment in the future; like
CISCO or AOL.
1) Any sufficiently successful program, protocol or file format
that dominates over 60% of it's market on a given platform must make
the file format or transmission protocol it is based on an open
standard. This would mean that anyone who wishes could read and
write Word, PowerPoint and Excel files. This would not represent an
undue hardship to a company as long as its product remained
competitive. For example, the Flash (.swf) file format is an open
standard. Any company could start making a Flash editor at any time.
MacroMedia dominates this market because it makes the best product.
Consumers win. MacroMedia keeps a dominant position as long as no
one else makes a "better product" not by virtue of a
"compatible product".
2) Companies must publish all their APIs for any OS they create.
This prevents a company from building hidden accelerations or road
blocks to competing application software-which MicroSoft has
done on many occassions (WordPerfect, Netscape, Apple's Quicktime,
Novell). A company acting "above board" would not be
damaged by developers knowing their OS's API interface. I would be
suprised by any compelling arguement that said; "developers
really know what is going on with our OS, and that is a
problem."
3) If a company is in a position that allows them special access
to another companies software development, the standards for
[[Page 27118]]
copyright infringement should be higher. For example, if I am a
developer and I must submit my application to Microsoft for
approval, or I need to give them inside information about the
functionality of my application in order to make my software run
better on Windows, then the proof of origination in any subsequent
software by Microsoft needs to be proven to "be unique and
original". The court settlement between Apple and Microsoft
stipulated that if either side produced a newly patented technique
or algorithm, that the other party would have to license it from the
first party whether or not they created something without reverse
engineering. The burden of original work should be on the company
with inside information. When Microsoft sells most of the software
development programs, most of the OS and most of the APIs, they are
at an advantage with respect to reverse-engineering any application
on their OS. The courts and the public and the competing companies
shouldn't have to "trust" a company with such an
advantage. The companies in priveleged positions should have to
"prove" origination on competing products or algorithms.
A collective of business leaders elected in some way by their peers
should have a review board to approve duplicate software submissions
by priveleged parties before they can be bundled, sold or even given
away. This does not in any way include the thousand of
"shareware" developers that make many applications that
are similar, because they do not have priveleged information that
could give them an unfair advantage in reverse-engineering.
4) Illegal competition, copyright and patent infringment cases
need to be sped up in the court system. Especially in situations
where a company has limited capital and resources to defend it's
means of revenue. In the case of Stacker software, it had to compete
against Microsoft who began bundling it's major application in
Windows (a compression program that effectively doubled the amount
of data a given hard drive coult hold). It took years to settle in
court, meanwhile Stacker had no revenue because the product was now
free in Windows. When the case finally made it to court, Microsoft
bought up a controlling interest in stock for pennies on the dollar.
The the lawsuit was dropped because the major stockholder was not
Microsoft-rewarded for their lack of ethics. In reference to
suggestion (3), prior art cases where a priveleged party has
duplicated the work of another company needs to be addressed within
three to six months, with continuances only available to the injured
party.
I believe better laws that would help make a more open market
for everyone in this new age of intellectual property would pass the
test in this settlement. It does not "directly" punish,
nor is it unequally applied as such rulings could apply to all
companies. It also prevents future abuses and benefits consumers in
the long run. Enforcing such policies would make it easier on the
court system, because it will be harder for Monopolies to abuse
intellectual property and standards. Real solutions to this problem
need to come forward. The settlement process should be out in the
open and fair to the marketplace. There are not many left who
actually believe the Microsoft cannot remove Internet Explorer from
their operating system when one third party programmer developed a
small program that could easily do just that (IEradicator, by Shane
Brooks, 1999-2001 http://www.98lite.net). When Microsoft
openly dismisses court rulings and even increases it's non-
competitive practices (converting MP3s to proprietary MS-only format
in XP, .NET in every aspect, automatically adding links onto web
pages that connect to advertisers who have paid Microsoft, this list
is just a small sample), it will only incourage other abuses of the
courts will in the future.
I hope my suggestions may be helpful.
Mark Johnson
Senior Multimedia & Web developer
MTC-00022053
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43pm
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,
Melvin Slayton
3992 Weal Road
Chatham, VA 24531-4041
MTC-00022054
From: Jason Piterak
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:47pm
Subject" Microsoft Settlement
Introduction
I write to comment on the proposed settlement between the US
Department of Justice and Microsoft (the Proposal). I believe that
the Proposal makes progress in the right direction, but does not go
far enough. As a result, I urge you to deny this settlement and
consider further action.
As a business owner and entrepreneur in the computer field, this
ruling will have a direct impact on the well-being of myself and of
my employees. Unfortunately, the proposed remedy will do very little
to curb Microsoft's continuing abuse of Monopolistic power. The end
result of this is likely to hurt my company and thousands of
businesses like it.
I urge you to consider the arguments below. They are result of a
combination of discussions with other experts in this field and, I
think, give a good accounting of the reasons I and many of my peers
oppose this proposed settlement plan.
Summary
* Microsoft holds a dominant position throughout the software
industry. A remedy which deals exclusively with
"middleware" is not sufficient. All Microsoft software
should be covered.
* There should be no restrictions on pricing or product tying.
Microsoft should be left free to develop and sell its products as it
sees fit. The only exception to this are the rules which cover OEMs
ability to include competing products instead of Microsoft ones.
* Microsoft's monopoly position is founded on its control of
proprietary interfaces. Microsoft products are linked through a
network of proprietary interfaces, making it difficult for
competitors to produce software that will inter-operate with
Microsoft software. If the proprietary interfaces were published
then competitors could produce software that competed directly with
Microsoft without the expensive and error-prone process of reverse
engineering.
* These proprietary interfaces are in the form of file formats,
network protocols and APIs. All three need to be made available to
competing products.
* Where two Microsoft products work together the interface
between them can best be made available by setting up a
"Chinese wall" between the development groups
responsible for them, and then requiring Microsoft to publish all
the technical data that is exchanged between these groups.
* Where one copy of a product communicates with other copies of
the same product (such as when an MS word document is sent to
another MS Word user) the file format or communication protocol
should be published in a form which allows independent verification
that the product conforms to the published description.
* Special consideration should be taken of Open Source Software
development over the questions of cost, trade secret status and
patent licensing.
* The "security related" exception to disclosure
should be narrowed to include only keys, passwords and similar
security tokens.
Microsoft's Position
Microsoft currently holds a dominant position in the computer
software industry, and as I shall show below it maintains this
position through control of proprietary interfaces.
I believe that a fair and effective remedy should destroy the
competitive advantage that Microsoft gains through its control of
interfaces, but still allow it to compete and innovate on equal
terms with its competitors.
In the longer term I would suggest that legislation be created
to require all software companies above a certain size to publish
the details of their interfaces, and thereby create a truly level
playing field in the software market. However that is not the
subject of this note.
Over the past decade Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated a
willingness to
[[Page 27119]]
evade or ignore regulations aimed at curbing its monopoly power.
There is no reason to expect this behavior to change. Therefore any
effective remedy must be drafted to block not only the past misdeeds
of Microsoft but any it might devise in the future. The rules under
which Microsoft is to operate must be unambiguous and, as far as
possible, free from the need to make value judgments as to whether
Microsoft has fulfilled its obligations sufficiently. Any such
judgments will may be used as delaying tactics by Microsoft.
Product Tying
The current case was originally concerned with the alleged tying
of Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows 95, in violation of
anti-trust law. However the list of features which users expect to
find in an operating system has evolved over time, and continues to
do so. A previous example concerns "disk defragmenters",
which optimize the arrangement of data on a disk in order to speed
up access. Before Windows 95 these programs were sold separately by
competitors to Microsoft. When Windows 95 was released it included a
disk defragmenter. The competing companies could no longer sell
their existing products, but there was no public outcry because disk
defragmentation is generally considered to be a function of the
operating system.
Suppose that ten years ago Microsoft had been effectively
prevented from adding new features to Windows: today a modem PC
would have to include a dozen or more small packages of software
which would be more economically produced and sold as a single
product. Computer vendors would have to purchase and integrate all
of these small packages, and buyers would have to cope with a
bewildering checklist of small but important items that they would
have to ensure their computer included.
Thus a fair and effective remedy cannot enjoin Microsoft from
ever bundling new functionality in its products, even when a market
for that functionality already exists in third party products. US
anti-trust law deals with this point by requiring that product tying
of this sort be of benefit to consumers, and prohibiting predatory
pricing. However this principle is of little help in the software
market. There is no "fair" price for software in the
sense that there is for physical products (i.e. the unit cost plus a
reasonable profit) because there is no unit cost. The cost of
software is entirely in its original development. Left to themselves
software vendors will set a price which maximizes their income, but
there is no link between this price and the cost of development. Any
plan to regulate Microsoft by imposing fair prices must therefore
remove entirely its right to set its own prices, and this in turn
will require it to negotiate a price for software before starting
development. The result would be an effective nationalization of
Microsoft, and is highly unlikely to benefit consumers. But if
Microsoft is free to set prices, even to set them at zero, then it
can effectively tie products by distributing free add-ons at the
point of sale.
Therefore I must reluctantly conclude that regulating
Microsoft's ability to tie products is likely to do more harm than
good, and should not be included in the final remedy. Microsoft
should be left free to determine what functionality is included in
each of its products.
The Proposal also sets rules for the related issue of the
"Desktop". This properly prevents Microsoft from
ensuring that its products are more prominent on the desktop than
those of its competitors. Such user interface concerns are
important, but are not the subject of this note.
Interfaces
The Proposal concentrates on the "Application Programmer
Interfaces" (APIs) to Microsoft "Middleware" (a
vaguely defined term, roughly meaning software that sits between the
operating system and the applications employed by end users).
The Proposal is right to concentrate on interfaces. Microsoft
has always used proprietary interfaces to manipulate the market and
lock out competition. To illustrate how this works, suppose
Microsoft sells products Foo and Bar which communicate via a
proprietary interface. I purchase Foo, and subsequently want the
added functionality of Bar. There may be many competitors in the
market for Bar, but they are effectively excluded from my
consideration because their products cannot communicate with Foo.
Similarly if copies of Foo communicate with each other through a
proprietary interface then anyone wishing to work with me must also
purchase a copy of Foo. This creates a "network
externality" which ensures that, even in a competitive market,
the best option for an individual consumer is the product with the
largest market share, since this brings them into the largest
population of potential collaborators.
By creating a web of proprietary interfaces, both between
products and between its customers, Microsoft has ensured that it is
locked into its market in a way that has never before been possible.
It is this stranglehold on the market for software that must be
broken. Since Microsoft has used its control of proprietary
interfaces to achieve this, it is on interfaces that any effective
remedy must concentrate. The focus of the Proposal on
"middleware" is misguided. It excludes applications and
operating systems, which are the two areas where the monopoly power
of Microsoft most needs to be restricted. Furthermore its vague
definition creates too much opportunity for Microsoft to redefine
critical interfaces as something other than
"middleware", leading at best to argument and delay.
Examples
It is worth looking at two of these interfaces to see how they
lock Microsoft into the market.
* Microsoft Office is the leading "office productivity
suite". There are competitors, but they are critically
hampered because their users cannot reliably exchange documents with
MS Office users. Some degree of inter-operability does exist, but
this has been enabled by painstaking "reverse
engineering": the competitor can only learn about document
formats by inspecting the files created by Office and trying to
deduce how each part of the document is encoded in the file. This
process is expensive and error-prone, and Microsoft can always
introduce new features faster than they can be reverse engineered.
As a result no existing competitor to Office can reliably import a
complex document. Consumers know this, and therefore avoid these
competitors. This prevents the competitors from gaining market
share, no matter how good their products might otherwise be.
* The Kerberos security protocol was developed by MIT and has
now become an important component of many systems. Microsoft
included Kerberos support in Windows 2000, but with a small change.
Kerberos is an "authentication" protocol: it guarantees
that the parties to a transaction are who they say they are.
Microsoft added authorization data to the protocol. This meant that
Windows 2000 would only grant access to shared files and printers if
the Kerberos "ticket" presented by the user had been
issued by a Windows 2000 server. This appears to have been an
attempt to lock competitors (including the freely available MIT
server) out of the market for Kerberos authentication products. In
response to a public outcry within the computer industry Microsoft
first insisted that the format of its extra data was a trade secret,
and then released the data on its web site under a "click-
through" license under which the recipient promised to keep
its contents a secret. I will return to this strange license later
in the section on Open Source Software. The net effect of this web
of proprietary interfaces is to make any mix of Microsoft and
competing products less functional than a pure Microsoft solution. A
pure non-Microsoft solution is not usually possible, either because
Microsoft has driven the competition into the ground or because
there is a need to communicate with others who are using Microsoft.
Hence the only choice is between a pure Microsoft solution and a
mix. In a world which is dominated by Microsoft there can only be
level competition if the interfaces to Microsoft software are
equally open to all competitors. Files, Protocols and APIs
There are three types of interface which an effective remedy
must address: files, network protocols, and APIs. Files stored on
disk are an important repository of value for any computer user. The
ability to read this data and exchange it with others is the most
important requirement for any new software. Therefore Microsoft
should be required to disclose the file formats for all its
software. This will enable competitors to create software which
reliably works with files created by Microsoft software. The main
immediate effect of this will be to enable competitors of Microsoft
Office to compete on a level playing field. In the longer term it
will prevent Microsoft from using the proprietary file format of any
popular application to gain a monopoly position through market lock-
in.
Similarly, protocols used to communicate over networks should be
opened up. The Kerberos example above illustrates how even seemingly
minor proprietary extensions can create strong market lock-in. As
the Internet becomes increasingly important so the use of
proprietary protocols will become an important method for Microsoft
to maintain its monopoly position unless it is stopped.
[[Page 27120]]
APIs are a much more complicated issue than files and protocols.
For every file format or network protocol used by Microsoft there
are thousands of "function calls", the basic element of
APIs. Function calls are used both within a single product and
between products. There is no simple way to distinguish the function
calls which are made within a product and those made between
products unless the products in question are designed to work
separately as well as together. Microsoft has already used this fact
to obfuscate the question of whether Internet Explorer is
intrinsically integrated with Windows 95. It can be expected to use
this tactic again in the future. Since it is not feasible to use
product tying rules to prevent this (see above), I suggest that
Microsoft be required to identify every API which is used to
communicate between software in two different products, and disclose
that API in full. The smallest unit of "API" to be
disclosed should be the "DLL" (Dynamically Linked
library). In Windows a DLL is a single file which provides
collection of functions to other software. Making DLLs atomic for
disclosure purposes will encourage Microsoft to keep the APIs for
communication between products distinct from the APIs within
products, thereby reducing the work required by competitors who wish
to offer competing products which offer the same APIs.
Disclosure Mechanisms
Detail
The Proposal has nothing to say about what level of detail will
be included in the interface descriptions. This issue is not
trivial. For programmers, the ultimate description of what a
function within an API does is the source code which implements that
function, which leads programmers to say "use the Source,
Luke" when faced with a detailed technical query about a piece
of software. However the inspection of source code is not always
practical, either because the code in question is proprietary (as in
this case), or just because it would take too long to understand.
Hence developers routinely produce documentation which describes the
functions in an API in a more readable form.
The Proposal seems to envisage this kind of documentation being
made publicly available. However there does not appear to be any
incentive to Microsoft to make this documentation complete or
accurate, other than enforcement by the courts. Since this kind of
document can never be 100% complete or accurate the question will
arise as to whether it is good enough. If Microsoft acts true to
form it will inevitably argue that its documentation is indeed good
enough, and will carry on arguing this until it becomes a moot
point.
To avoid this problem I suggest that Microsoft be required to
erect "Chinese walls" between the development groups
working on different products. Only published documentation may be
exchanged between these groups. Hence if Microsoft wishes to sell
two products which work together it can only do so if it also
informs its competitors how to make products which will can work
just as effectively.
The remaining problem on detail is the file formats and
protocols used when one copy of a product communicates with other
copies of the same product. The Chinese wall system will not work
here. However since this problem is restricted to file formats and
protocols the problem of ensuring the adequacy of documentation is
much smaller.
Established techniques (such as BNF grammars and state machines)
can completely describe file formats and protocols, and these can be
used as the basis of an unarguable technical finding that either the
software or the documentation is defective. This is not a complete
solution to the problem, but it should level the playing field
sufficiently to allow competition.
Publication and Open Source
Since this case started Open Source Software (OSS), such as the
Linux operating system, has become a significant competitor to
Microsoft. Therefore any effective remedy must take account of the
special requirements of OSS development over normal commercial
software development. The primary issues here are costs, trade
secrets, and patents.
Costs:
Whatever disclosure mechanism is chosen for interface
descriptions, it must be within the financial reach of open source
developers. A subscription of several hundred dollars a year, such
as is required for the Microsoft Developer Network, is trivial for a
competing software company but a major hurdle for a volunteer
developer working on OSS. Given that interface descriptions must be
prepared for competitors, there is no reason why they should not be
distributed for free over the web rather than only made available to
an exclusive club.
Trade Secrets:
Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface
descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension
to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they
inevitably reveal the full details of their operation to any
programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret
status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from
using that interface, since to do so would reveal the
"secret" of its operation.
Patents:
Microsoft has not made much use of patents to protect its
market, preferring to rely on proprietary interfaces. However if it
is prevented from using proprietary interfaces it may decide to use
patented ones instead.
When Microsoft next introduces a new interface, especially a
network protocol, it would be a simple matter to obtain a patent
covering the operation of that interface. At that point any
competitor wishing to inter-operate with Microsoft products using
that interface would have to license it from Microsoft. The usual
solution in such situations is to require licenses on
"Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" (RAND) terms.
However even RAND terms require payment. OSS developers are unable
to offer payment. Therefore the Remedy should require Microsoft to
license its patents on RAND terms to commercial software vendors and
on Royalty Free terms to Open Source projects.
Incidentally, Microsoft has described OSS as "un-
American" and "an intellectual property
destroyer". These descriptions try to tar OSS developers with
the same brush as software pirates. This is incorrect, Software
pirates selfishly take the work of others and use it without paying.
OSS developers take their own work and permit others to use it for
free. This is a wholly generous act, fully in keeping with the
American ideals of volunteerism and service to one's community.
Security Details
The Proposal includes a broad exception for "security
related" information. However Microsoft could argue that
almost any interface, especially APIs and communication protocols,
is "security related" if it is used to carry any kind of
authorization or authentication information. Indeed, it made exactly
this argument when it initially refused to reveal its extensions to
Kerberos. Therefore the exception for security related information
must be narrowly drawn.
Fortunately this is not a major problem. It is a basic principle
of computer security that would-be intruders will eventually learn
the operational details of your security mechanism, either by
reverse engineering or by other less legitimate means. Any security
which depends on the intruders remaining ignorant of these details
is known as "security through obscurity", and regarded
by security practitioners as inadequate at best. Therefore the only
items which should need to be kept secure are the keys or passwords
which operate the software. These can be easily changed if they are
compromised. Hence if security interfaces are well designed then
they will not need to be kept secret. And if they are not well
designed then Microsoft should be required to remedy the fault
rather than keep this fact secret.
Conclusion
The proposed Settlement would have little effect upon the
business practices of Microsoft. If adopted in its current form them
the result will be no change to the behavior of Microsoft, and yet
another prolonged court case in another five or ten years.
Any effective settlement must concentrate on opening up the
markets that Microsoft has effectively closed by its use of
proprietary interfaces, file formats and protocols.
I hereby respectfully submit these comments for your
consideration,
Jason Piterak
Jason Piterak
System Architect
CIS Technical Services
33 Main St., Suite 302
Nashua, NH 03064
(603) 889-4684-FAX (603) 889-0534
MTC-00022055
From: Barnett-Lewis, William
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The proposed settlement of the DOJ anti-trust actions against
Microsoft are completely contrary to the best interests of the
consumer and of the nation. Microsoft has shown, repeatedly, an
utter contempt for the law and
[[Page 27121]]
legal proceedings. The proposed settlement will simply reward them
for their contempt of court.
William Barnett-Lewis
238 N. Marquette
Madison, WI 53704
MTC-00022056
From: robin brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:47pm
Subject: Dear Sirs,
Dear Sirs,
I'm writing today to express my support for Microsoft and ask
that you not impose sanctions on this company. I used Microsoft's
products every day by choice and have derived nothing but benefit
from them. In no way am I prevented from using other companies
products, I simply choose to use Microsofts because they fulfill my
needs better. In particular, I use Microsoft's hotmail service, its
free email provider. I signed up in 1998, and have used it
continuously since then. This has been my lifeline to my friends and
family when I have been abroad and has been a great benefit to me.
All I have received from AOL has been a continuous supply of
unwanted CDs entreating me to sign up for AOL. I have several icons
on my computer screen that I've never been able to remove because of
software that installed the icons for AOL without my consent. I
object to this, and this is the main reason that I will have nothing
to do with AOL's products. If AOL feels they are losing market share
to Microsoft's products, they should look to their own business
practices before they blame Microsoft.
Microsoft's hotmail has been provided for me for free. Would you
impose sanctions that would force me to use a fee based service
because Microsoft's free email supposedly damages its competitors?
What about the damage that imposing sanctions would do to
individuals like me? Microsoft is a competitive company that has
embodies the american idea of competition and success. Restraining
it with the jealousy of unsuccessful competitors will only damage
the public. Please leave Microsoft alone.
Best regards,
Robin Brown
MTC-00022057
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:44pm
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,
Barney Sieber
253 Fir Tree Place
Goleta, CA 93117-1110
MTC-00022058
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:44pm
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,
Maureen De Witt
135 Penland Lane
Missoula, MT 59803-2451
MTC-00022059
From: Nelson Bartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was a Microsoft user since the days of Dos 6.22.
I've used every version of windows from Win 2 to win XP and
every time I have felt that my money investment was unjustified in
the company.
I have since switched over to linux (this is being written from
work on an ME box) as my primary desktop, as well as my file/print
server.
I have found it to be a much better investment in time and
resources, as it provides a constant stream of updates, and feature
enhancements, and provides a strong community of free support on
every aspect of the operating system.
NB
MTC-00022060
From: Joe Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing as a concerned citizen who has worked with
computers in Biomedical research for almost 25 years. If the
proposed settlement is allowed to stand, I believe it will cause
great harm to the computer industry and to our society. Detailed
arguments have been published by others better qualified in both
information technology and the law, so my comments will be brief:
The proposed settlement
(1) does not punish Microsoft for it's illegal actions.
(2) does not deprive Microsoft of the profit from it's illegal
actions.
(3) does not prevent Microsoft from continuing to maintain it's
monopoly in desktop operating system and application software.
(4) will not prevent Microsoft from using it's monopoly position
to aggressively and unfairly compete in related markets. Many,
including apparently the Department of Justice, feel that the status
quo is acceptable and that Microsoft's monopoly is
"benevolent".
This is a fundamental misjudgement. Absolute power in any
segment of society is unacceptable, regardless of how efficient or
benevolent it may seem. A healthy IT industry and economy requires
free competition among a variety of companies and technologies.
That Microsoft's monopoly has already harmed it's customers is
plain if you compare the open and competitive PC hardware sector
with the Microsoft-dominated PC software sector. Hardware
performance has increased geometrically (roughly doubling every two
years) while costs have decreased. PC software performance, on the
other hand, is marginally better than it was 10 years ago and it is
MORE expensive. Perhaps even more damaging is the precedent this
settlement creates: a company with a history of anti-competitive
behavior and resistance to legislative action, convicted of illegal
activity, is walking away essentially unpunished, a corporate
scofflaw. This sends a powerful message to other large corporations
and even to other countries that the US government is unwilling or
unable to pursue such matters to a fair and just conclusion.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter,
Joe Smith
Thomas Jefferson University
Dept. of Pathology, Anatomy & Cell Biology
577 JAH
1020 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
[email protected]
MTC-00022061
From: David Stever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that it's terrible that the Justice Department has let
Microsoft off the hook for it's terrible monopolistic practices. The
remedies that have been arrived at are the merest slap on the wrist,
and don't adequately address Microsoft's practices.
David Stever
55 N. Griggs St.
St. Paul, MN 55104
MTC-00022062
From: Frank Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27122]]
Date: 1/24/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
Would you please quit trying to bankrupt Microsoft! Get off
their back and let their competitors put out a product that is as
good or better and get their money that way. Our current economic
situation can probably be traced to this stupid lawsuit.
Frank Stephenson
Stonewall, TX
MTC-00022063
From: Mike Howsden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I DISAGREE with the microsoft settlement and I don't think
settling with microsoft without adequately punishing them and
deterring them from future monopolistic practices is adequate. The
current settlement agreement is neither good for the country nor the
economy. Also, by allowing Microsoft to "pay" with free
software, you are basically costing them nothing, if not helping
them continue monopolistic practices. A possible solution may be to
open the source to windows "95 or something, at least that
could give competitors a much needed edge after years of being
illegally discrimated against. the current settlement is less than a
slap on the hand. thanks for your time.
Mike Howsden
845 E. 275 N. Apt #3
Logan, UT 84321
MTC-00022064
From: W. Ryan Campbell Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please count me as an American citizen who believes that
Microsoft's proposed settlement is definitely a bad idea. Please do
not accept it.
Sincerely,
William Ryan Campbell Jr.
MTC-00022065
From: Leo Schuman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement will cripple the long-term health of the
software industry.
MTC-00022066
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:43pm
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,
Randall Bunch
183 Oak Drive
Kingston, TN 37763-4738
MTC-00022067
From: ATT Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Transgressions
While I am a firm supporter of Microsoft operating systems and
products, which I believe are the best available, I feel the focus
should be on Microsoft's control of the IHVs/ISVs. Microsoft
controls the content, form, and function of third-party products
through incentives and programs for manufacturers and their
"Logo Certification Process", ostensibly a quality
control program but in practice a way to dictate feature sets and
behavior of non-Microsoft hardware and software.
thanks,
Mark Lobodzinski
[email protected]
817 466-3508
MTC-00022068
From: Camm Maguire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings! I think that the proposed final settlement in the
Microsoft case fails to address several key anti-competitive
practices used by Microsoft to create and sustain their monopoly.
These include Microsoft's prohibition against shipping its products
in conjunction with publicly available software, Microsoft's
prohibition on running applications created with its tools on
competing, publicly available operating systems, and Microsoft's
per-processor licensing charges to large customers, even when many
of these processors are running a competing operating system.
Please reject this settlement in favor of a more comprehensive
solution.
Thank you for your consideration.
Camm Maguire [email protected]
MTC-00022069
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
Subject: The government should be the sole expression of power of
citizens. When any person, in Microsoft's c
The government should be the sole expression of power of
citizens. When any person, in Microsoft's case, a corporate person
wields too much power other persons" freedoms are placed in
jeopardy. It is all the worse when a corporate citizen abuses its
great power such as Microsoft has done. But in truth no citizen
corporate or private should ever hold great power at all unless it
is elected by the people to do so. If the foundation of American
Democracy and Republic is to be sustainable it must prevent any
citizen from having power far in excess of any other by which it can
then rival that of the nations elected officials. Microsoft past
actions only demonstrate why this principle is sound and why we
should take away its ability to bully the market. Quite simply, if
it goes unchecked, later will we have the ability to stop Microsoft
from bullying the the nation?
James Tolar
MTC-00022070
From: Sam Desmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam or Sir,
My name is Sammy E. Desmond, Jr. and I am Senior System Analyst
with a major chemical company. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree
in Computer Science and I have over 19 years of experience with
computers. The purpose of this letter is to submit my comments
concerning the Microsoft anti-trust settlement in accordance with
the Tunney Act.
As veteran of the computer industry and as a parent advisor to
my local school districts technology committee, I have seen first
hand the devastating effect Microsofts monopoly power has caused.
There are numerous examples of how they abused their monopoly
position to stifle competition and reduce consumer choice.
I have thoroughly examined the proposed settlement and cannot
find anything that even comes close to being a remedy to the
antitrust violations that Microsoft has already been found guilty
of. As you are well aware, Microsoft Corporation has already been
found guilty of abusing its monopoly power.
At the very least, a just penalty should include the following:
* Restrictions must be put in place that force Microsoft
to publish and fully document all present and future file formats of
any documents created by Microsoft application software. This will
invigorate competition from other software producers and allow the
data to be read by other programs and on other operating systems.
* Microsoft must be required to publish and fully document
the Windows Application Program Interface (API).
* Microsoft products must be positioned as optional, extra
cost items on brand new computer systems. Consumers that do not wish
to purchase the Microsoft products should not be forced to do so.
The current non-optional bundling of Microsoft products with new
computers is sometimes referred to the Microsoft Tax in which the
price of the Microsoft products are included in the price of the
computer even if the consumer erases the Microsoft products and
replaces them with something else.
* Also, any current and any future Microsoft networking
protocols must be published and fully documented in full and
approved by independent industry bodies.
As the Internet becomes a more important part of civilization,
it is extremely important that Microsoft does not extend its past
abusive behavior into that realm. If Microsoft is not sufficiently
penalized and is allowed
[[Page 27123]]
to extend its monopoly influence to the Internet, the results would
be disastrous. As a matter of fact, the highly respected Center for
Strategic and International Studies released a study a year ago that
stated Microsoft software poses a U.S. national security risk. See
the following web site, which describes this report:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/29/
csis.microsoft.report.idg/
In closing, history offers numerous cases when bad decisions
were made for which future generations paid a heavy price. Please
take this opportunity to properly punish Microsofts abusive behavior
while there is still time.
Respectfully,
Sammy E. Desmond, Jr.
3930 Suncrest / Groves, Texas 77619 U.S.A.
(409) 723-3226 / [email protected]
MTC-00022071
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs,
I'm writing to express my opposition to the DOJ/Microsoft
settlement. As I'm sure you're aware, Microsoft holds a monopoly
position in the desktop operating system market, a position they
regularly use to bully and coerce other companies into agreements
that benefit only Microsoft, in the long run. This is fact, as
supported by the original findings of the DOJ case against
Microsoft. Further, Microsoft not only seeks to maintain their
monopoly in the desktop operating system space, but to expand it
into wireless and handheld devices, as well as low earth orbit
satellite systems and media outlets, as evidenced by their
controlling shares purchased in those companies and industries.
I urge you to please reconsider this settlement, as it is
ultimately bad for consumers and competition, as well as the data
processing / communications and mass media industries. I sincerely
feel that if this decision is allowed to pass, the DOJ will have to
expend far greater resources in the future to reign in a larger,
more influential software and electronic media giant than the one we
are dealing with today. Please do not waste the tax dollars of
myself and others on future litigation. Act now to divest Microsoft,
as was originally recommended.
Sincerely,
Mike Roncadori
MTC-00022072
From: McClure, Scott
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice executives,
I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion regarding the
Microsoft Settlement via the Tunney Review process. We consumers
have the freedom to choose which vendor's operating system we want
and what hardware to run it on. In addition we can choose which web
browser we want to use. If an operating system upgrade causes
problems with old software, then we can choose not to upgrade, or
select a different operating system altogether. I think the people
should decide which operating system is most compatible with the
products they like. That decision is made people who are informed
about their technology choices whenever they select one product over
another. As people become more informed about their technology
choices, there will be few disputes about some vendors success over
others. The people will decide when they choose some vendors over
others.
Thank you for your time on this issue. I am sure there are other
cases that deserve your time more than this one.
Scott McClure
MTC-00022073
From: Gregory Thomy
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The proposed settlement is BAD idea
MTC-00022074
From: Scott Frey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I belive that the proposed settlement for the case will not only
be ineffective, it will only prove that Microsoft has a monpoly that
includes the federal government. Why does my government buy
*anything* from a convicted criminal?
"I was fed up with it. The last straw was when the
developers kit for Windows 95 came out on 12 CDs. The entire human
genome fits on one CD. You can't tell me that software needs to be
that complicated." -Jim Kent, UCSC, who wrote the 10,000
line C app that assembled the first draft of the human genome
Scott Frey
608.256.9050
Hyperion Studios: Technical Manager
WORBA: Past President
IMBA: Wisconsin State Representative
MTC-00022075
From: Larkin Selman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I need a viable alternative to Microsoft Windows.
I do not feel that the proposed settlement will do much to break
monopoly that Microsoft has on the OS market. Microsoft must be
forced to make its OS code open to competitors. Microsoft's
punishment should be sufficient to dissuade them from future
monopolistic behavior.
Larkin Selman, M.D.
MTC-00022076
From: Wade Maxfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
Subject: Regarding the Settlement between US Gov and Microsoft
Microsoft has had a long history of blatantly ignoring the US
Department of Justice agreements they have signed. That is why they
ended up before the court in the first place.
This latest agreement appears to mimic B'rer Rabbit's Response
to B'rer Fox-"Please don't throw me in the briar
patch!" Whereupon the rabbit laughs at the fox and runs off
happy as can be. Because Microsoft owns over 90% of the desktop
market, and because they act like they own over 90% of the desktop
market, their ability to act like a monopoly should be severly
curtailed. This means that alternative operating systems owned by
other entities (commercial or not) should be introduced into the
educational mainstream by Microsoft. Alternative operating systems
owned by other entities should be supported and fostered by
Microsoft.
For example, Microsoft should actively develop, sell, and
support Compilers, Development Environments, Office application
systems, Internet explorer, and other products for other operating
systems, including Macintosh, AIX, Linux, BSD in an equal manner.
Microsoft should also be curtailed from electronically collecting
detailed information from end users, whether for product activation
or product execution. To allow them to continue their current
practices could present a national security risk. Other branches of
the government have already shown by anecdotes that Microsoft
products have many security holes. According to newspaper reports,
Passport has been hacked, Windows XP has been hacked, etc. The FBI
has put out stern warnings. The list continues.
To avoid concentrating too much power into too few hands, the
information collection systems portion of Microsoft should be spun
off into a stand alone unit. Already collected information would be
available under the purview of current legal structures in various
states. This would allow third parties equal access, preventing a
monopolistic freeze out. This would derail much of Microsoft's
current advantages.
Finally, please do not allow the current "slap on the
wrist" to be the final word to Microsoft. It will do nothing
to curtail Microsoft's predatory business practices. If it stands as
is, it will result in Microsoft ending back in court within a
decade, with even more difficult
decisions to be made.
sincerely,
Wade Maxfield
MTC-00022077
From: Matt Scilipoti
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Matt Scilipoti
7539E Weatherworn Way
Columbia, MD 21046
January 24, 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
[[Page 27124]]
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Upwards of
60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like
Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating
better products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on
litigation. Competition means creating better goods and offering
superior services to consumers. With government out of the business
of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Matt Scilipoti
MTC-00022078
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:49pm
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,
Gary McMains
Rt 1 Box 116
Stover, MO 65078
MTC-00022079
From: kenweger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir:
This, attachment, is a letter sent to you via Fax 1/24/02. I
just wanted to make sure you did indeed, receive this plea to let
the market place decide on what programs are best for the consumer.
I have both Netscape and IE for my browsers, and much prefer IE as
being better and more true to what a browser should be. I also, have
Linux, O2 & Windows as my operating system, and again prefer MS
as better all around and much more to my needs. So, why should those
companies, that can't compete with one another, just either become
better or stop "crying" when another company bests them
on their own playing field? I don't find anything that MS has done
to be anymore than a better competitor and present a better product
for me, as a consumer, to enjoy. It really is my choice as to what I
want to use, not the government or the "cry-babies" of
the industry. Does one team that loses to another better one, file
suit as unfair or do they try to improve and be better than their
opponent? that is what I feel is happening with Microsoft.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I as a consumer
will profit.
Kenneth J. Weger
Ken (WA6EMU) & Nancy (KA6FHE) Weger
P.O. Box 1079
Colfax CA 95713
(530) 346-8877
[email protected]
Webmaster for:
http://www.foothill.net/gcpcug (Gold Country PC Users Group)
http://www.calodges.org/no51 (Illinoistown Masonic Lodge No. 51)
http://www.foothill.net/GCDBSA (Gold Country District Boy
Scouts)
http://users.cwnet.com/kenweger Personal Information with
photos)
http://www.foothill.net/colfax/lions (Colfax Lions Club
International)
http://www.foothill.net/colfax/history (Colfax Area Historical
Society, Inc.)
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/colfaxumc (Colfax United Methodist
Church) http://www.foothill.net/GCDBSA/scouter.html (Rsum of a
consummate Scouter)
MTC-00022080
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
Subject: (with a subject of "Microsoft Settlement')
To Whom It May Concern:
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. We need to
prevent corporate monopolies from squeezing out all our choices.
"No to Microsoft".
MTC-00022081
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:49pm
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,
Thomas Aveni
279 Westmoreland Road
Spofford, NH 03462
MTC-00022082
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
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,
Alex Piliper
5330 Zelzah Ave. #9
Encino, CA 91316
MTC-00022083
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
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,
Allen Appell
527 Woodland Road
kentfield, CA 94904
MTC-00022084
From: Paul Dembry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I have followed the various Microsoft cases for many years. My
company uses many
[[Page 27125]]
Microsoft products as well as many from Sun Microsystems, IBM,
Hewlett-Packard, Silicon Graphics, Compaq, and Apple. We run our
main software developement system on RedHat Linux.
When Netscape's predecessor browser Mozilla became available, we
started using it within our firm. After all the price was right
(free!) and it worked ok most of the time. When it crashed, you just
restarted it. We are a software development firm and so this did not
bother us. When Netscape added features to this original browser and
packaged it as the Netscape Browser, we eagerly downloaded and used
it for the same low price (free!). At the time, Netscape was the
dominant provider and acted like it was the only provider. They were
arrogant and when faced with product deficiencies, their response
was "take it or leave it.".
Then Microsoft decided that the Internet was not going away and
produced Internet Explorer for the same low price (free!). The first
few releases were not very good and we stayed with Netscape, but
over a period of a couple of years, IE really improved to the point
that it is much more reliable than NS. At that point, we dropped
using NS on Windows and use IE. We still use NS on our non-Windows
machines even though there is a Java version of IE but it is not
very good. If it improves to the point that it is better than NS, we
may switch to it.
My point here is that NS had the market to itself and blew it.
Microsoft was late to the party, kept grinding away at improving IE,
and is now the main browser provider. Nothing prevents me from
downloading NS and using it except for the fact that it is an
inferior product. Microsoft did use its muscle to ensure that IE was
bundled on each new PC but so what? If the consumer did not want to
use it, he could simply download NS and that was the end of it. If
you do not like the Ford radio in your new car, replace it with a
new one. Apple computer managed to marginalize itself in the same
way. Apple had a superior product to Windows for many years. They
were arrogant and kept the price high enough that consumers
concluded that they could live with the much cheaper and not as good
Windows products. Microsoft kept improving Windows to the point
where Apple is a very small part of the consumer market.
These cases against MS boil down to one central issue: the
failure of Microsoft's competitors to provide better products.
Instead of competing in the marketplace, they competed in the
courts. Somehow they managed to convince the trial judge that
Microsoft used illegal tactics to steal market share. You have an
opportunity to expose this travesty of common sense. I do not need
the Federal government to spend my tax dollars to tell me what
software I need on my systems.
My firm competes against many very large companies in the
software arena, including Oracle and Software AG. We have a very
hard job convincing potential customers to go with us instead of the
"big guys" but we manage to do it on the strength of our
products. Oracle, for example, has attempted to duplicate some of
our technology in its database but we still manage to provide a
better performing product. Perhaps we should have gone to the court
system and said that Oracle was bundling some of our ideas into
their products and thus harming us. I certainly hope that the trial
judge would have laughed us out of court! Instead we just keep
focusing on improving our products to keep ahead of our competitors,
just as Microsoft does.
When the justice system is used against successful business by
their less successful competitors, the economy will suffer.
Political decision making in the business arena leads to corruption
and decay. We have laws that govern personal and business conduct
and these must be enforced. This is one function of government. But
when competitors abuse the justice and political systems in an
attempt to throttle companies, we will all lose. It is important to
remember that not one of these Microsoft cases was brought to court
by consumers. Consumers have greatly benefited from the software and
hardware innovations of the last three decades. There are very few
barriers to entry in the software business and this serves to keep
all software vendors vigilant. This is all that is required to keep
new products and ideas reaching consumers at a reasonable cost.
Sincerely,
Paul Dembry
MTC-00022085
From: Graham Leggett
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement it BAD for America.
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law and evaded previous
restrictions on its anti-competitive behavior. This settlement
proves to Microsoft that crime pays very well. The Bush
administration is clearly against the free market and on the side of
monopoly.
Graham Leggett
President
Computer Quick
MTC-00022086
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:51pm
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,
Monica Shepard
1412 Vista Grande
Fullerton, CA 92835-2835
MTC-00022087
From: Jean Fonner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Members of Department of Justice:
I am writing to say that as a senior citizen on a very limited
income I am very thankful to Microsoft that they included everything
(browser, instant messaging, etc.) on my computer when I bought it.
Being a novice in technology, I wouldn't have known what to buy.
Please stop all this liigation against Microsoft and let them
get back to the business of inventing innovations and items which
will help the economy start booming again. I think AOL and Netscape
are way out of line and their latest suit should be thrown out as
just a frivolous suit to stop competition. Thank you for considering
this request of an interested citizen.
Sincerely yours,
Jean B. Fonner
([email protected])
MTC-00022088
From: Gary D Ott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I've used personal computers since October of 1983. I do not
agree with some of Microsoft's business practices. However, the
Microsoft operating system is the de facto operating system on the
majority of personal computers in the world.
The Apple Macintosh had the first GUI, but Microsoft rose to the
challenge and developed Windows. This is bad? Netscape was a popular
browser, but it had its limitations. Microsoft came up with a better
(opinion) browser and gave it away. Why is this bad? Netscape could
have improved their product and remained the browser of choice, even
though their browser was a retail product. It was easier for them to
bash Microsoft than to improve their product.
The government's action in the Microsoft case is (to me) just
like the government's action with respect to Ma Bell. It wasn't
necessary to break up AT&T just to allow MCI to provide long
distances services. Rather than regulating business practices, the
US government and the department of Justice seem to feel it
necessary to "punish" companies that gain competitive
advantage through sheer bulk. Better the government should spend
their time on companies like Enron who are engaged in what appears
to be criminal behavior and their watchdogs, like Anderson, who seem
to act in concert to promulgate the criminal activity then to
destroy the companies who made this country what it is today.
AT&T gave us the best telephone system in the world and
Microsoft gave us the preeminent personal computer operating system
in the world.
Gary D. Ott
[[Page 27126]]
Palmdale, CA
MTC-00022089
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:49pm
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,
Gary McElwee
129 E. High St.
Hellertown, PA 18055-1104
MTC-00022090
From: Gary Stahara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I wish to express my disdain for the proposed Microsoft
Settlement in it's current form. This proposal amounts to a slap on
the wrist and will not do anything to promote true competition in
the desktop computer space. I believe the best solution would be to
either split the company into two separate divisions (operating
system and applications) or at minimum, mandate that the company
provide versions of it's most popular programs (ie: Microsoft
Office) on other competing platforms (ie: Mac OS and Linux) and
insure that these competing versions provide unequivocal feature
parity with the Windows version (ie: no advantage on one platform or
another because of features available for one version as opposed to
another, as well as be priced similarly. This will promote choice of
platform and competition to Windows.
Thank you
Gary Stahara
MTC-00022091
From: Gordon Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is fair and just. Microsoft got
to be where they are via innovation and excellent marketing. I'm
sure there are some shady sales practices somewhere, but I believe
the prosecution of MIcrosoft by many states attroneys general has
nothing to do with protecting consumers, and a lot to do with
fattening state coffers at Microsoft's expense. And that's a crime.
Respectfully
Gordon Smith
Pleasanton, Ca.
MTC-00022092
From: Karl (038) Betty Schendel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement in United States vs
Microsoft is weak and seriously flawed.
The Proposed Final Judgement has (at least) these flaws:
1. It makes no attempt to prohibit Microsoft from raising
artificial barriers against non-Microsoft operating systems which
implement the API's needed to run applications originally written
for Windows.
2. The definition of "API" is excessively narrow,
permitting Microsoft to withhold details of API's that do not fit
the Proposed Final Judgement definition but yet are crucial. (For
example, installer API's.)
3. The Proposed Final Judgement has no effective enforcement
mechanism. While there is considerable language setting up
investigative committees and officers, none of them have any
coercive power over Microsoft. Presumably a violation would have to
be enforced by legal action. Isn't that what we have just done?
Where then is the enforcement?
4. Under the Proposed Final Judgement, Microsoft still has
considerable latitude for coercing OEM's. For instance, Microsoft
would be allowed to retaliate against OEM's who wish to ship some
computers with no Microsoft operating system at all. It also allows
Microsoft to reward OEM's based on criteria such as sales of
Microsoft products, thus extending the Microsoft monopoly. Again,
isn't this what the lawsuit was all about in the first place? I am
not a lawyer, and even I can see that the Proposed Final Judgement
is nothing more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. It does not
satisfy the Court of Appeals" mandate and should not be
adopted in its present form.
Karl R. Schendel, Jr
9111 Cromwell Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
USA
MTC-00022093
From: Clint Weathers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I cant belive youre letting those crooks get off so easily. This
is exactly the kind of thing that the anti-trust laws are supposed
to protect us from, and youre letting them get off scot-free. You
should be ashamed of yourself.
How much did Bush administration officials get from Micro$oft in
campaign contributions? This could turn into the next Enron for you
if you let them get away with this.
-Clint Weathers
KC MO
MTC-00022094
From: Andrew Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. It does
nothing to deter Microsoft from continuing its monopolistic
practices. With some $25 billion in cash, Microsoft can practically
buy out or squash all fair competition.
By agreeing to and accepting this settlement, the U.S. DOJ is
pandering to the whims of Microsoft, instead of upholding the law
and protecting its citizens. Anything short of a genuine break up of
Microsoft will achieving nothing significant. Anything less than a
genuine break up of Microsoft will be nothing more than a mere slap
on the wrist.
Don't let politics cloud your judgment-do what is just and
right for the good of the country. Do not accept this settlement.
Fair competition is good; monopolies are not.
Regards,
Andrew Lee
MTC-00022095
From: Marilyn Shepard
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marilyn Shepard
2241 Eucalyptus Ave.
Escondido, CA 92029
January 24, 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,
Marilyn J. Shepard
MTC-00022096
From: Julia Hart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/24/2002
Microsoft's proposed settlement in no way repairs the damage
done by their anti-
[[Page 27127]]
competitive practices. Furthermore, the influx of Microsoft software
into the education market would extend their monopoly, perpetuating
Microsoft's ability to use illegal business practices and stagnate
the industry.
To truly create a fairly competitive market, Microsoft's control
must be restricted, most effectively by splitting the company into
two (or preferably three) smaller, specialized, independent
companies.
Julia Hart
Columbia University Student
New York, NY
MTC-00022097
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:52pm
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,
Catherine Jackson
6815 56th Court
Kenosha, WI 53142-1537
MTC-00022098
From: Michael Haggerty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The crux of the problem is Microsoft's virtual monopoly on PC
operating system software and its abuse of that monopoly. One
serious abuse that has not been addressed by the proposed settlement
is its charging of exorbitant fees for its operating systems. While
it is true that operating system prices have been declining, the
decline is far slower than that of the prices of comparable software
products.
Since the marginal cost of producing software is close to zero,
the proper comparison is with other software products that have
extremely large unit sales (over which the development costs can be
spread). In such a comparison Microsoft's operating systems are
found to be considerably more expensive than should be expected.
Indirect evidence of its artificially high prices is provided by the
unusually high profit margins enjoyed by its operating systems
division.
Microsoft's monopoly rents on its operating systems (along with
other dirty tricks that have been discussed elsewhere) have enabled
it to subsidize the development and marketing of applications in new
areas, such as its web browser. By thus financing the
"dumping" of new applications on the market at prices
far below cost, it is able to crush their competitors in the
application market and thereby extend its monopoly to the new area.
The consumer suffers via lack of choice, overpriced and poor-quality
operating system products, plus the same in each application market
once Microsoft has squashed the competition.
As far as I can tell, the proposed agreement does nothing to
constrain Microsoft's collection of monopoly rents on its operating
systems, nor to prevent the recurrence of the predatory pattern
enabled by its lucrative operating system monopoly.
Sincerely,
Michael Haggerty
Software Team Leader
JPK Instruments
MTC-00022099
From: Terrence A. Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached is a scanned copy of the letter mailed to Attorney
General Ashcroft. Note I added a handwritten personal note.
Terrence A. Freeman
MTC-00022100
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The purpose of this e-mail is to lend my voice and help bring
speedy closure to the subject settlement.
Too often we find in our country that the legal profession is
directly involved in the decision making process in industry. This
settlement is a prime example. Microsoft is a very successful
company and should be allowed to compete for its share of the
computer market. Legal maneuvering by the legal profession on behalf
of Microsoft has resulted in expensive delays. Lets act like
reasonable and honorable people and help bring this settlement to
closure during the first quarter of 2002.
Regards,
Roy Tweedie
MTC-00022101
From: Lloyd McArthur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:56pm
Subject: Let's get on with life. Settle the issue.
Let's get on with life. Settle the issue.
Phyllis
MTC-00022102
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:52pm
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. If the same
standards were applied against all corporations as have been applied
against Microsoft, half of the nation's corporations would be out of
business. How can a monopoly be "enjoyed" if a company
loses \2/3\ of its value? Thanks to the initial suit and its
supporters, our stock market crashed. 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. But the user has always had ample choices, so the
whole thing has been a hoax right from the beginning. Shame on our
Justice Department.
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,
Joseph Earley
124 Meadow Lane
Raymond, WA 98577-9249
MTC-00022103
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not do enough to
ensure healthy competition in existing markets and those of the
future. I believe Microsoft is using its monopoly position to
leverage itself into control of the Internet. Microsoft's power
precludes small companies form successfully launching products to
enhance consumers" lives. Microsoft's model for software
development leads to lower quality software. By allowing Microsoft
to continue and enhance its monopoly, the United States will lose
its leading competitive position in software development in the
world marketplace.
Respectfully,
John R Kuster
MTC-00022104
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As part of the public comment opportunity, let me add the
following: I believe that this is a frivolous lawsuit and welfare
for the states. It is white collar robbery for the most part. I am
an experienced computer user and webmaster. I have not been damaged
in any way by Microsoft's actions and I find that there are
sufficient alternatives to Microsoft application programs so that I
am not required to use Microsoft software if I don't choose to.
Thanks for the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely,
John C. Holliman
[[Page 27128]]
113 Kimball Dr.
Lafayette, LA 70508-7801
337-981-3454
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00022105
From: Craig E Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a senior software engineer at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and I find the Microsoft Settlement lacking. It does not
stop the anticompetitive practice of bundling software with
Microsoft's operating systems, which have a monopoly presence in the
desktop operating system market.
This allows Microsoft to drive competitors (for instance Real
Audio) out of the market by bundling it with their operating system.
Microsoft obtains remuneration for the bundled product through the
cost of the operating system. But this forces the competitor to
compete with a "free" product.
This must be fixed to allow for competition in the market place.
Craig Rasmussen, Ph.D.
Advanced Computing Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
MTC-00022106
From: John Viega
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've read all of the information on this case. I think the
proposed settlement is fairly ridiculous. It does very little to
alleviate the core problems, in my opinion. I would urge you to
consider other options that are less favorable to Microsoft.
John Viega
7001 Wayland Dr.
Warrenton, VA 20187
540-349-8041
MTC-00022107
From: Luke Scharf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current proposal does not do enough to curb Microsoft's
anti-competitive business practices. Microsoft should not be allowed
to renegotiate with OEMs who chose to package non-Microsoft
operating systems or products on computers that also have Microsoft
products. Furthermore, Microsoft should be compelled to sell the
same product at the same price to all of their customers.
Luke Scharf,
jack of many trades
http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/lscharf
MTC-00022108
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:55pm
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,
SC 29455
MTC-00022109
From: Joe Buczek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
The proposed Microsoft Settlement is wholly inadequate in
addressing Microsoft's -illegal- anti-competitive behaviors. It does
not address the mechanisms by which Microsoft was able to engage in
these behaviors. The Microsoft corporation is GUILTY of illegal and
anti-competitive activities. These activities reduce competition
and, thus, increase the price and reduce the quality of available
software technologies for all consumers.
As an independent software developer with over 25 years of
experience, and as a fair minded U.S. Citizen and taxpayer, I expect
Microsoft to be held accountable as
a-convicted-lawbreaker, as I would be held accountable
if I were found guilty of breaking laws. The punishment must fit the
crime. The proposed settlement doesn't begin to approach an
appropriate level of punishment or address the anti-competitive
behaviors of the guilty party in a way that would allow redress. A
reasonable settlement must include at a minimum:
1. Each and every Microsoft API and each and every data file
format and message format shall be documented by Microsoft and
published, without license or restriction, on the World Wide Web.
Further, no software may be released commercially or to developers
by Microsoft prior to the publication of these specifications,
including any software enhancement revisions. The spirit of this is
to enable third parties to write software that can legally and
reliably interoperate with Microsoft products.
2. Any instance of Microsoft employing undocumented APIs or
intentionally created incompatibilities in their products shall
result in a fine of $10,000,000 per day, per instance. Reverse
engineering of their products must be exempted under the DMCA for
the purposes of the discovery of these and other related practices.
Twenty percent (20%) of any fines collected will be awarded to the
first person or organization who reports them to the DOJ. Reporting
of these offenses shall be facilitated by the establishment of a DOJ
server whose sole purpose is to collect and disseminate such
reported violations.
3. Microsoft shall be required to sell its software to all
parties for the same price, and such prices shall be published
without restriction on the World Wide Web at all times. Full
disclosure of pricing is necessary to prevent predatory anti-
competition in the OEM space.
4. The terms and conditions of all licenses shall be made
available to the DOJ for a period of 20 years. No agreement may be
entered into by Microsoft or its subsidiaries without the DOJ
receiving a copy during this period.
5. Any attempt by Microsoft to circumvent these penalties shall
result in a prosecution of the corporation and its management under
RICO because the corporation and its officers have already been
found guilty of illegal and conspiratory behavior.
Anything less than the above terms would not be in the public
interest. Under these terms, Microsoft would continue to be a
dominant market force, if not the dominant force, in the software
market for years to come. However, forcing them to publish their
APIs and data formats would open them up to true competition in
technology. They could charge whatever they wanted for products, but
they would have to tell EVERYBODY what they were charging for
everything, and could not use predatory or bundling pricing to
achieve coercion, as they have been found guilty of doing.
Creating a significant punitive punishment system for detecting
violations at the technology level would create an incentive for
private individuals, most likely in the software business, to keep
Microsoft honest. Anyone finding breeches of this part of the
judgment would potentially find themselves being funded by Microsoft
to become a competitor!! In this regard, enforcement not only isn't
a taxpayer burden, but finding and reporting violations could
actually result in creating further competition. Ultimately,
taxpayers are served twice by this: 1) not having to pay for
enforcement, and 2) benefitting from better, cheaper software
products.
In closing, I respect Microsoft as a successful American icon. I
frequently use their products, but I have also found both my
professional and my consumer interests limited by their practices.
And because of my professional experience, I also know that better
products would be available if true competition were possible. Such
competition is not presently possible, nor would it be under the
Proposed Final Judgment because nothing in the judgment guarantees
that Microsoft will "allow" competition of technologies.
Since when do guilty parties get to decide what their punishment
should be? Who better than the public is in a position to determine
"what is fair" in this case? Microsoft is GUILTY. The
punishment should fit the crime. They are guilty of PREVENTING
COMPETITION. The punishment should FORCE THEM TO ACCEPT COMPETITION.
Nothing could be simpler than this. If the company is not willing to
accept a fair judgment, then justice must prevail upon the guilty
party to do what society deems is appropriate. No
murderer-wants-life imprisonment or the death penalty,
but surely, there are instances where these are Necessary and Right
and Just. The guilty party in this case is not going to
[[Page 27129]]
acquiesce and accept what is fair. It is up to the justice system to
mete out an appropriate punishment. The one I have described above
would, in my opinion, be fair.
Respectfully,
Joseph Buczek
San Jose, Ca
[email protected]
Vuetia Inc.
408.298.6178
MTC-00022110
From: Charles B Cranston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:00pm
Subject: Please break up Microsoft
It is abundantly clear that the only way to avoid a paralyzing
monopoly in computer software (and eventually hardware) is to
immediately break Microsoft up into multiple corporations. American
business seems to already be falling into a posture where an
attached Microsoft Word document is the only way to email formatted
documents-and this puts those of us who do not want to further
Microsoft by legally acquiring Word at a real disadvantage. The
average pointy-headed supervisor thinks "standardization on
Microsoft" is a good thing, but this will inevitably lead to
software monopoly.
Monoculture is dumb. It's dumb for people (National Socialism in
30's Germany), it's dumb for agriculture (what happens when the only
kind of corn grown becomes particularly susceptible to a new
blight?), and it's dumb for software.
Charles B. (Ben) Cranston
15704 Allnutt Lane
Burtonsville, MD 20866-1404
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.wam.umd.edu/zben
MTC-00022111
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
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,
JEROME JEROME
5029 COLD SPRING LN
ST. LOUIS, MO 63128-1802
MTC-00022112
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:58pm
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,
THOMAS WISZ
4141 Lockford St.
SANTA MARIA, CA 93455
MTC-00022113
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:56pm
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,
Latisha Kitten
4816 72nd
Lubbock, TX 79424
MTC-00022114
From: Ying, Xingren
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
Please settle Microsoft case. I cannot see any help of consumers
and technical innovation in this endless lawsuit. All lawsuit did is
try to help Microsoft competitors but using the name of consumers.
Actually AOL and Sun behavior are poorer and uglier than Microsoft.
The technical focus is change in this three years lawsuit. The
program platform is moving from OS to Browser, and then to Network.
Nobody can keep the edge without innovation in such dynamic market.
Why waste tax payers money to help crying loser and punish one time
winner?
Please settle!
Xingren Ying
Sr. Software Engineer
Commerce One Inc.
MTC-00022115
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:59pm
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,
Carl Cunningham
551 W. Ironwood
Chandler, AZ 85225-6540
MTC-00022116
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that it is important for the US Department of Justice
to take a tougher stand on imposing the penalties on Microsoft that
they deserve. They are guilty of monopolising the software industry
and leveraging their various monopolies to create new ones. This is
a behavior, as shown by your prosecuters and confirmed by the
presiding judge in the matter, that is not a new thing nor a minor
thing but is a fundamental part of their core business model.
For this reason no light penalty is sufficient to punish
MicroSoft and begin restoring a measure of competition to this
strangled industry. Nothing short of a massive restructuring of the
way that they do business will accomplish this, a restructuring that
needs to be imposed and enforced by the caretakers of the public
good, you.
The current proposed settlement does exactly the opposite of the
minimum required restitution. It increases MicroSofts monopolies,
makes no restitution for past violations, and makes minimal
assurances as to avoidance of future repetitions. For these reasons
I feel it is imperative that you reject the proposed settlement and
push for more effective measures that better maintain the publics
need for competition.
[[Page 27130]]
Sincerely,
Daniel Charles Stillwaggon
([email protected])
MTC-00022117
From: Scott Trotter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case is a
very bad idea. Microsoft is a ruthless competitor which thinks
nothing of using illegal and unethical means to achieve it's goal of
complete domination of the computer software industry. While the
actual case focused on the web browser situation with Netscape, I
have personal experience with other, similar situations involving
Microsoft which resulted in similar outcomes: Microsoft eliminating
competition-and competitors-using illegal and unethical
business practices. If left unchecked, Microsoft will continue to
engage in such practices, to the detriment of the rest of the
industry.
Microsoft was convicted of serious crimes, and deserves serious
a serious sentence, one designed to punish the company for its past
behavior, undo or compensate for the damages it inflicted on its
victims, and most importantly to prevent it from engaging in such
practices again in the future. The current settlement proposal is a
laughable slap on the wrist which does none of these things, and
would actually enhance the company's dominance over a market which
is does not already control. The settlement should be rejected and
replaced with a more appropriate set of sanctions.
The computer software industry is the foundation of the economy
of the 21st century. Don't allow Microsoft to destroy that
foundation.
Scott Trotter
Executive Producer
Paris France, Inc.
[email protected]
MTC-00022118
From: Dave Ruff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I submit the following Tunney Act Comment regarding the Proposed
Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the Proposed Final Judgment does not place effective
restrictions on Microsoft in many areas where it has exercised anti-
competitive actions-
Some specific examples
The Proposed Final Judgment does not place restrictions on how
Microsoft can license products to large users (corporations,
universities, government). Although per-processor licenses are
prohibited by the 1994 consent decree, the enterprise licenses often
charge a fee for each computer which could run a Microsoft Operating
system, independent of whether any Microsoft software is installed
on the computer. This removes any financial incentive for
individuals to run non-Microsoft software-making the licensing
agreements anti competitive. Microsoft uses licensing terms which
are hostile to Windows-compatible competing operating systems (i.e.
the NewsAlert) download available from MSNBC. Similar Licensing
conditions could be specified which are Microsoft product neutral
yet provide similar or better software product protection.
I feel that Microsoft is an aggressive company, engaging in
practices which grant no quarter to competitors. If a strong
settlement is not generated and enforced, then there will be no
observable reduction to its anti-competitive activities.
MTC-00022119
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:59pm
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,
Lynda Tinkham
712 M St
Eureka, CA 95501
MTC-00022120
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:01pm
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,
Clyde Lorenz
P.O. Box 73114
Fairbanks, AK 99707-3114
MTC-00022121
From: E. C. Ebert Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
The proposed MS/USDOJ settlement is utter nonsense, disregarding
all of the anticompetitive issues found against MS in the original
trial, and substituting a nominal wrist slap against MS. Given that
an estimated 90% of all PC's worldwide employ MS Windows (Windows
3.1 thru Win-XP) it is abundantly clear that a monopoly exists. The
proposed USDOJ settlement is a political remedy and not justice! I
demand that our federal government stop the nonsense and uphold the
original Court Findings. In lieu of that, the Court could
"find" that as a monopoly MS must observe certain
"rules as a "Public Utility" "just as power
companies and telco's must, although since power deregulation we
have seen the economic rape and pillage by California power
distributors that "regulation" was designed to prevent.
Now then, since the first release of Win 3.1 the price of hardware
to run the OS have dropped by a factor of four, while MS has more
than doubled its price for Windows ... an 8x cost benefit
differential. Is this "rape and pillage" not obvious to
our government litigators? What sort of sleazy game is being played
by the USDOJ?
E. C. Ebert Jr.
118 Oxford Road
Waukesha, WI 53186
MTC-00022122
From: Mario Martinez
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a systems analyst and software engineer with 7 years of
experience I'd like to comment on the proposed final judgement in
United States v. Microsoft.
In my opinion the settlement does very little to increase the
opportunities to compete with Microsoft's operating system products,
or it's middleware and application products. Namely, it does not
prevent Microsoft from raising any barrier it wants against
companies who wish to create "Microsoft-compatible"
operating systems or applications. This is already evident in the
Microsoft Platform SDK EULA which allows it's use soley with a
"Microsoft Operating System Product."
It would also continue to allow the exclusionary practices
Microsoft is guilty of today, such as it's discrimination against
Open Source platforms as seen in the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder
7.1 SDK EULA which prohibits distribution on Open Source operating
systems. Recently there have been other Microsoft applications whose
EULA allows its use solely on platforms arbitrarily selected by
Microsoft.
The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, therefore, the
Proposed Final Judgment is not
[[Page 27131]]
in the public interest, and should not be adopted without addressing
these issues.
Thank you,
Mario Martinez
ILX Systems
111 Fulton St.
New York, NY 10038
212-510-3223
MTC-00022123
From: J Bridges
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement, as I understand it, is insufficient
considering the damage done by Microsoft by their anti-competitive
business practices as a monopoly. Even during this trial their
practices haven't changed. Not only does it not loosen their
stranglehold on the market, I believe it strengthens their grip. The
settlement also does not make any reparations for the abuses already
done, before and during the trial. Strengthening their monopoly by
putting their software in schools that otherwise probably wouldn't
have used it is not wise. I am completely opposed to this
settlement.
Sincerely,
John Bridges
Clovis, CA
MTC-00022124
From: Brandt, Jim
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I think the proposed settlement doesn't even begin to address
the problems with Microsoft's monopoly practices. This settlement
should -not- be accepted.
Jim Brandt
Application Developer
SUNY at Buffalo
MTC-00022125
From: Ethan Clauset
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea,
as it fails to consider many of the anti-competitive ways in which
Microsoft acts and it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism for
dealing with the areas that it does cover. I endorse Dan Kegel's
analysis of the problems with the proposed settlement, which can be
found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Ethan Clauset
852 N Leavitt St #2
Chicago IL 60622
MTC-00022126
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:59pm
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,
ROBERT FEERO
645 BIRCHWOOD COURT
LOS ALTOS, CA 94024
MTC-00022127
From: Mac Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am tired of the way Microsoft is trying to manipulate the
courts, public opinion and the software market. They have
demonstrated time and again contempt for the legal process and have
taken every opportunity to circumvent the spirit of settlements made
in the past. Clearly they are bent on getting away with whatever
they can without regard to the will of our justice system. I beg of
you, do not "settle". Make you penalties against
Microsoft strong and enforceable enough to bend them to compliance.
Otherwise the technology sector is going to be a a desolate,
unimaginative field where Microsoft hands out terms to the public
and business, who will have no choice but to accept a mess that you
could have prevented.
Let us not forget the principles of biodiversity. It applies to
technology as well. If Microsoft is allowed to continue it's
monopolistic practices, what will happen when the technology that
98% of the world runs on stops working because of some design flaw
or viral attack? This argument is especially frightening given the
present world political climate, and the terrifying lack of security
in Microsoft software.
Thank you,
Mac Scott
MTC-00022128
From: Ron or Cecelia Oxford
To: "[email protected]"
Date: 1/24/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DoJ,
Today I received the Microsoft Freedom to Innovate Newsletter,
the following is an excerpt I have taken from it, to which I totally
agree with their viewpoint;
"Microsoft has not completed a review of the lawsuit, and
therefore cannot comment on specific allegations at this time. We
can note, however, that AOL purchased Netscape for $10 billion
dollars in the midst of the DoJ trial, even after hearing concrete
evidence that IE's success in the market was based on merit, not
market share. This latest legal move appears to be an attempt by AOL
to once again retreat from the rigors of competition to the safer
confines of the courtroom, where the company is clearly more
comfortable.
Microsoft is disappointed, though not surprised, that AOL has
again chosen litigation. Microsoft has tried consistently to work
more closely with AOL in a variety of areas, including improvement
of instant messaging interoperability, getting fair and open access
to AOL's dominant cable assets and partnering on technology
standards that are key to developing future innovative technologies.
AOL has repeatedly rebuffed Microsoft's efforts, to the
detriment of consumers and the technology industry, and has turned
to politics and litigation instead. But more litigation is the last
thing consumers and the industry need. AOL and Microsoft need to
focus on market competition and technical cooperation that will make
consumers" computing experience easier, not spend further time
and resources in the nation's courtrooms." It is truly not in
the best interest of the country in general, past, present and
future consumers, or even people who have never been a consumer of
software to allow such a trial to take place. It is true Microsoft
has won dominance in the market place with it's Windows operating
system and associated Browser. I believe, not through "shady
dealings", but through solid innovation and sound business
practices. Every corporation in the world strives for market
dominance, if they didn't, why stay in business. The fact that AOL
lost....GEE too bad, they should have tried harder, and the
courtroom is not where they should be trying harder. It is
embarrassing that a company the size of AOL-Time Warner/Netscape has
to attempt to use the courts to try to gain what it can't in the
market place. All the while claiming that it is doing this in the
name of protection for the consumer. The damage to consumers and the
general economy alike is being done by AOL, through these senseless
on ongoing litigations. We the investing public have lost billions
thanks to these lawsuits and trials, not to mention what they have
contributed to the overall recessionary bent of the economy. It
seems to me that, we, the public should be sueing AOL for damages
for what this has cost us.
If the Federal Government really wants to intervene in private
business, the time and place to do so is here. Put a screaching halt
to these riduculous trials, send AOL back to the drawing board and
let the country get back to recovering from this recession.
Microsoft should not be blamed for AOL's inadequacies.
I hope my voice will make a difference,
Ron Oxford
19128 SE 63rd PL
Issaquah, WA 98027
(425)643-1172
MTC-00022129
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:01pm
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
[[Page 27132]]
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,
Lyle Collister
HC 70 Box 5444
Sahuarita, AZ 85629
MTC-00022130
From: Robert Bruggner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I just wish it express my concern about the proposed Microsoft
settlement in that it fails to address any of the licensing
agreement terms that Microsoft uses to prohibit the use of open
source applications on Windows. As a student computer science, I
have gained a countless amount of invaluable experience through the
use of and examination of numerous open source applications. Its a
shame that I can't gain this experience on a computer that uses a
Microsoft OS.
Sincerely,
Robert Bruggner
CSE Junior
University of Notre Dame
MTC-00022131
From: Larry Boler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
When are end consumers like me finally getting a break from
everybody choosing the chicken way out in competing with Microsoft,
who has done more to steering and developing technology and industry
standards to the benefit of consumers than anybody else.
New, calculated and unjustified litigation by AOL is just
another attempt to undermine previous settlements. It's high time
the courts let the consumer decide by simply chosing the better
product.
Larry Boler
MTC-00022132
From: Timothy Knowlton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
There are many flaws with the Proposed Final Judgment in the
Microsoft case. The two that are most important to me are the
following:
The Judgment does not prohibit Microsoft from retaliating
against OEMs who ship PCs with a competing operating system but no
Microsoft operating system. This means that OEMs will *still* be
forced to deliver machines loaded with Microsoft operating systems
to avoid financial and distribution penalties imposed by the
software giant. This is not acceptable. To create a habitable
environment for competing operating systems, OEMs *must* be able to
distribute PCs that use those OSes exclusively.
The Judgment does not require the release of MS Office file
formats. Since a file format is not covered by the definition of an
API, its release is not required. But those formats are some of the
most crucial parts to constructing competing products in the Office
Suite field. Sun has made excellent progress on StarOffice, a
competing suite, but still lacks complete interoperability with
Microsoft Office because these file formats have never been
released. In order to stimulate competition in the Office market,
the file formats must be released to the public.
I urge those involved NOT to accept this Proposed Final
Judgment. These are just two of the many loopholes that would only
allow Microsoft to continue its anti-competitive practices in the
face of a legal decision. Please take the time to reconsider the
ramifications of this settlement.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tim Knowlton
MTC-00022133
From: michelle(a)arden.org
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I am a computer executive with over 20 years of experience
working in Silicon Valley or some of the best software and hardware
companies in the industry-Sun, Silicon Graphics, Novell, and
many computer startups-some even successful.
I am writing to express my dismay and extreme disappointment
with the settlement of the Dept of Justice on the Microsoft
antitrust case. To anyone in the computer industry-or
negotiating with Microsoft, as I have done many times-over the
past twenty years, the strategy of the company is clear. Microsoft
uses predatory, unfair, and patently illegal processes to compete. I
have seen them blatently ignore non-disclosure agreements and copy
technology to put small companies out of business without shame or
excuse. I have seen them acknowledge that there is no need for them
to use fair business practices because of their dominance of the
computer industry. I have seen many small companies fail-and
many large companies decide not to invest-in technology
development areas that would benefit consumers, all because these
potential developers have determined that Microsoft would unfairly
compete and render their efforts useless. I urge you to reconsider
the settlement conclusions and impose a stronger Microsoft remedy
that shows that the United States Government will not permit unfair
monopolies and continued monopolistic behavior of companies within
our borders.
Sincerely,
Michelle Arden
[email protected]
Phone: (650) 326-0962
Fax: (650) 329-8440
MTC-00022134
From: Robert C. Holley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This attack on Microsoft has gone on much too long, it has
turned into blackmail, or terrorism. We all know that one way to win
is to keep your opponent in court until he's broke and has to
confess, agree, or give the company to his tormentors. We are
fighting a war all over the world to stop terrorism and yet our own
government practises it on Americans. Not only that, we allow
Activist of every sort to blackmail their victims by using terrorist
methods. An example is the fur industry and the timber industry. Is
not the government a government of all the people or is it just the
government of activist. If its just for activist then we must have
already become socialist with an axe to grind. We must remove
temptation from activist judges, politicians and socialist by
getting back to our written law called the Constitution. It is not a
living document and it allowed for change by Congress and the
States. Lets quit letting slick lawyers, the Supreme Court, the news
media and politicians change it by declaring it changed.
R.C. Holley
4800 W. Illinois
Midland, TX 79703
E-mail [email protected]
MTC-00022136
From: Nathan Clegg
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that Microsoft's business practices are anti-
competitive and that the United States Federal Government needs to
take action. Microsoft's practices squash good businesses and
products, and stunt technological progress. Its grievances have
crossed beyond the legal limit and are hurting our economy and
community. Microsoft's own proposed settlement is not only
ineffective at solving the basic problems, but is actually
beneficial to their position and furthers their monopoly in several
markets. Please STOP Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior with
action that will make a lasting impression, remedy those harmed, and
improve our economy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nathan Clegg
MTC-00022137
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:04pm
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
[[Page 27133]]
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,
Barbara Weichold
4407 Woodview Street
Carmichael, CA 95608
MTC-00022138
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:02pm
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,
Brenda Hickman
1614 Crestwood Dr.
Harrison, AR 72601
MTC-00022139
From: Jules Siegel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am firmly against this settlement.
JULES SIEGEL Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501
http://www.cafecancun.com
MTC-00022140
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05pm
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,
Benjamin Cashner
905 5th Ave. Apt. C
Marion, IA 52302
MTC-00022141
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:05pm
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,
richard lloyd
2844 boxwood
toledo, OH 43613
MTC-00022142
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't like how this is going.
Microsoft has too much power and I don't see how the way things
are going, that that would change.
MTC-00022143
From: William Shepherd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:07pm
Subject: the "ttlement"
1. On the face of it, the suit against Microsoft was ludicrous.
2. The suit against Microsoft sparked the current debacle we
used to call a stock market. Nearly every pension fund and most
investors were heavily invested in Microsoft. The senseless attack
for political and business purposes was, in actuality, an attack on
all of us. Microsoft only did what we were taught to do in business
school. . . business, classic business.
3. That Microsoft is willing to lay out a tremendous amount of
cash to schools in "penance" is great. They should do
that anyway. The government and the courts should be mollified and
go away having smugly dodged the bullet whose name is, frivolous and
malicious prosecution. Though we know it cannot just overturn such a
highly publicised debacle, the loss of confidence in the system
would be too large, we can back off on the punishment. In fact, the
court did back off, now let's leave it lie. It was mostly a lie
anyway.
MTC-00022144
From: Mike Warot
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Comments
Who I am
I am Michael Warot, US Citizen by birth, programmer, technician,
and currently I am the Manager of Information Systems for Live
Marketing, a firm in Chicago, Illinois. I have been programming
computers almost from the day I first encountered them back in 1979.
I have witnessed firsthand the personal computer revolution, the
explosive growth of the software industry, the commercialization of
the Internet. I am writing this in the hope that my voice, along
with others, can make a difference.
My view
I feel that the proposed settlement is not an appropriate remedy
for the behavior of Microsoft. The settlement still classifies
insiders and outsiders. The only truly effective way to remedy the
situation is to force Microsoft to open all of the source code for
its products, and those of its subsidiaries (which would no doubt be
introduced to attempt to hide the source code from the public). This
approach may seem radical, but it offers benefits to both Microsoft,
and to the public at large.
1. Opening the source code, and the subsequent documentation of
the various protocols that we have been forced to use (remember,
Microsoft IS a monopoly), will allow the peer review of the
software, and a subsequent enhancement of the value of those
protocols to both Microsoft and the public at large, as value is
added by all parties as a part of this process.
2. Since Microsoft is the defacto standard in many environments,
its massive market share, and trusted brand name will continue to
grow if its standards can be adopted on novel and innovative
platforms, to which it can surely adapt its software with the rest
of us.
3. The proposed settlement limits its scope to Microsoft and
OEMs and ISVs with whom it has a legal contract, this allows the
inclusion of restrictive language into those agreements which would
quickly subvert the intended purpose of the settlement, buy creating
a new barrier to entry. If you allow the public to interact without
these restrictions, the barriers to entry will remain lowered, and
innovation can once again be introduced by all players, into the
marketplace.
4. The public should have the right to inspect the details of
the software on which our national security has been increasingly
dependent. Hiding this source code from the public creates an
artificial barrier to entry for those peers who wish to study the
software to help improve it. It effectively eliminates peer review,
which is the only truly effective approach to increasing security.
5. Anything less than full and open disclosure of all software
source code and
[[Page 27134]]
protocol documentation is not justice. I hope this helps you to
understand my perspective on this important matter. I hope that all
parties will agree that a more open atmosphere will be beneficial to
all parties, and the best approach in the long run.
Michael Warot
532 Florence Ave
Hammond, Indiana 46324
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Voice: (312) 787-4800x111 (work)
Web: http://warot.com
MTC-00022145
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:06pm
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,
Amarilys Martin
19191 Silver Palm Drive
Miami, FL 33170-5108
MTC-00022146
From: Schaller, Scott
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to say that, from what I've read and seen, I
haven't been able to see what the punishment for Microsoft's illegal
behavior has been. Putting in requirements that they obey the law in
the future (with a panel who has, as far as I can tell, little
actual power) is something that they must do anyway. Some form of
punitive punishment should be enacted so that Microsoft will think
twice before breaking the law again.
Scott Schaller
MTC-00022148
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:06pm
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,
Larry King
E 6308 Elm Ln.
Wausau, WI 54403-8919
MTC-00022149
From: Andrew J Syska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a user of Microsoft Net for a long time. Recently,
while visiting our family in Florida, I had an opportunity to use
AOL browser and email. I quickly understood why AOL appears to be
more comfortable fighting the competition in the courtrooms than in
the world of consumers. Those claims of "fast, easy?"
did not pass my muster. My son and daughter constantly complain how
slow AOL is. If only more people were motivated to try MSN and
Internet Explorer AOL might pay more attention to performance. I
believe AOL's recent lawsuit against Microsoft lacks integrity, and
is frivolous.
Andrew J Syska
MTC-00022150
From: Barnhill, William David
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir or Madam:
I have been a professional in the field of computing for over 25
years. I have been both an academic computing consultant and
manager, and an entrepreneur, having founded four companies that
paid taxes, had employees and generally contributed to the economy.
I believe I have a solid grasp of the legal issues as well, as the
son of a law professor and former prosecutor, I myself spent some
years in the law, trying to decide if I wished to become an
attorney.
The original settlement was just. The current proposal does
nothing to offer remedies. Microsoft has continually produced poorly
written software, at a high price, with absurd licensure terms. No
other product we buy has ever been as beholden to a single company
(perhaps the DeBeers monopoly on the diamond trade rises to this
level). If Ford, GM or Chrysler behaved in the cavalier, predatory
fashion Microsoft does, the automobile industry would have us using
band brakes, hand cranks and we would be forced to purchase our
gasoline from Microsoft only gas stations. Every industry in it's
infancy has some issues with regulation. This is just like the
situation with the railroads in the nineteenth century. Something
should be done, something WAS done, and this new settlement undoes
the excellently crafted decision of the trial judge. PLEASE
reconsider, there is almost no question within the industry that
breakup would produce STRONGER companies (viz. Standard oil's
breakup). The first time I read an industry editorial suggesting
this was circa 1990-isn't it time to listen to the industry,
rather than a single player in the industry, no matter how rich and
powerful they may be?
Best, and thank you for your consideration,
W. David Barnhill
Senior System Specialist
Academic Computing Technical Services
University of Kansas
MTC-00022151
From: Chris Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is incomplete in resloving Microsoft's
anti-competative practices.
I am a proponet of Dan Kegel's petition at:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Chris Holland
Contractor's Source Inc
3001 Red Hill Ave #2-226
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MTC-00022152
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
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,
John Trippe
8145 E. Del Capitan Dr
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
MTC-00022153
From: Thomas D Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:12pm
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
[[Page 27135]]
competitors to create software that is compatible with Microsoft's.
Sincerely,
Tom Richardson
Computer Engineering Student, P.S.U.
MTC-00022154
From: Tim Merritt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist which suffers virtually no
penalty for their criminal actions under the proposed settlement.
Please reject it.
MTC-00022155
From: Luke Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I would like to state my belief that the proposed settlement
does far too little. Especially of concern to me it the lack of a
stipulation requiring Microsoft to openly document file formats (see
"Findings of Fact" paragraphs 20 and 39). This single
act alone, while not remedying Microsoft's monopolistic business
practices, would provide a far greater possibility for software
companies to gain entry into the many software fields Microsoft
dominates.
Thank you,
Luke Crawford
R Brooks Associates
Rochester, NY
MTC-00022156
From: Nancy Lehrer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a very bad idea, effectively cutting
off creativity and free enterprise in the home computing and
commercial computing environments. Microsoft is renowned for
creating decent products and then whipping out the competition with
muscle and marketing. Their server products are a joke in comparison
to the Java/Unix/Linux products, but are so much cheaper to deploy
early and so incompatible with any other product that small
companies get sucked in hook-line-and-sinker.
Please reconsider this judgement.
Nancy Lehrer
Computer Scientist
Thousand Oaks, CA
MTC-00022157
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
To Whom It May Concern:
This American tax payer is sick and tired of the Federal
government taking my hard-earned money and wasting it on frivolous
and STUPID lawsuits against companies which make America work and
employ thousands of people. NOBODY was complaining about Microsoft
being a monopoly until their COMPETITORS did it! All it's done is
darn near wreck the economy-all you have to do is look at the
stock market since Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and their confederates
started this asinine stuff in cooperation with Big Law-people
we should be more worried about than Big Tobacco, Big Business, Big
Oil! Knock it off! Send me my money back!
Thanking you in advance for coming to your collective senses,
Bill Edwards
Fed-up Taxpayer
MTC-00022158
From: Taylor, Robert (ES)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
Since when did Microsoft deserve greater consideration with
respect to justice than that of any other company? This is an
organization that has repeatedly lied to the government and their
customers, has been proven to use predatory methods to reduce
competition in court (by the DOJ no less) and continues to behave
the same way now. Why has the Department of Justice of the United
States chosen to give up? To say otherwise would be an absolute lie.
The currently proposed settlement is of little propose if it
does not curb the practices that have caused the original trial in
the first place. Is justice blind or just stupid? If the currently
proposed settlement becomes the judgment against Microsoft then it
is doubtful that the issues raised by the trial will be settled in
my lifetime. The government has spent tons of taxpayers money on
these issues only to give up at the minute? This is the waste that
the present administration came to the Whitehouse saying that it
would abolish. Do the right thing. Punish Microsoft. Give them a
reason to behave as a normal business and not a monopoly power. Do
your job.
Robert M. Taylor, Jr.
10400 Faulkner Ridge Circle
Columbia, MD 21044
MTC-00022159
From: Ira J. Minor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is fair and just. I also
believe that Microsoft has already implemented and is abiding by its
requirements. One additional provision that would enhance the
competition in Operating Systems would be to require PC
manufacturers to offer new PC's with no software installed, thus
allowing the buyer to choose their software of choice. Since the
invention of the CD-ROM there is no technical reason to pre-install
(bundle) software on the hard drive.
Internet Browser software has been a highly discussed feature.
As a pioneer browser user from the days before there was a Netscape
or an Internet Explorer, let me put my perspective on the subject.
The first modern browser was Mosaic, developed by the NCSA, National
Center for Supercomputer Applications, at the University of
Illinois, with government funds. The developers of Mosaic went on to
found Netscape. When developing the Netscape browser they copied
Mosaic but did not license it from the NCSA. I think this is a major
Copyright infringement. Netscape became very popular and was
available for FREE. When Microsoft woke up and realized they needed
an Internet Browser they licensed Mosaic from the NCSA and developed
Internet Explorer. I switched from using Netscape to IE when IE
matured and became the better product. It was faster, more reliable
and offered Java support which Netscape promised but never
delivered. Netscape is still available for free and can cohabitate
on a system with IE but I continue to use IE because it is still the
better product.
Please contact me if I can be of any assistance in helping to
resolve the Microsoft Settlement.
Ira J. Minor,
IBM retired,
[email protected]
MTC-00022161
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
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,
David Hopson
148 Tommy Campbell Road
Jonesborough, TN 37659
MTC-00022162
From: Lou Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00022163
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
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
[[Page 27136]]
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 Tortoriello
157-11 Sanford Ave.
Flushing, NY 11355
MTC-00022164
From: Kent Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please do some
more research.
MTC-00022165
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:12pm
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,
Beldon Campbell
19109 Posen Rd
Nashville, IL 62263-6117
MTC-00022166
From: William R. Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
This message relates to the Tunney Review which closes on
Monday, January 28. I am a retired businessperson who for many years
battled my way in an open and dynamic marketplace. In suing
Microsoft AOL chooses to seek the "comfort" of the
courtroom to protect its $ 10 billion investment in Netscape,
instead of trying to prevail in a competitive market. What a waste
of time and of taxpayer's money!
Microsoft did not achieve success via government largess,
litigation or by seeking restrictions for its competitors. It did it
by developing the best operating system and many of the best
software programs that money can buy.
Don't interfere with the open market that-in virtually
every case-is the best judge as to who should survive and who
should step aside.
Sincerely,
William R. Hahn
Ph. 310 442-9923
FAX 310 442-6422
Mobile 310 600-6239
MTC-00022167
From: ODETOJOY77
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:13pm
Subject: Law suit settlement:
Microsoft has given America access to the "Enternet"
in the most economical way that has ever been conceived by mankind.
It is a shame forr them to have divide their profits with their
competitors. Shame on the people bringing suit.
Sincerely,
W.G. Pool, Jr.
Post, Texas 79356
MTC-00022168
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: microsoft.atr@u;sdoj.gov;;@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is with a great deal of dismay and some anger that I read
about AOL entering a lawsuit against Microsoft through their
subsidiary Netscape Communications. It would appear that this is a
frivolous lawsuit designed to waste the taxpayers money and enrich
trial lawyers. Everyone knows that the major stockholders of AOL are
"jealous" of the wealth, leadership, research and
development, and success of Microsoft. All the litigants want is to
get their hands on the Microsoft profits. This lawsuit is without
substance and must be stopped in its tracks. Stop this unlawful
pilfering of success of an outstanding American company. Stop these
damn lawyers from stealing legitimate wealth. I will keep close
watch on these proceedings.
I trust that leadership and intelligence will prevail during the
Tunney Review. Again, Microsoft should be held without fault. Cut
this crap out. If you allow this to continue, every pissy-assed
country in the world, led by Great Britain, France and Germany will
be cranking up their non-factual lawsuits in hope of destroying a
grand American company, Microsoft. If that would happen, you should
all be charged with treason.
Martin L. Healey
1045 Bunker Drive
Fairlawn, OH 44333.
MTC-00022169
From: Adrian Voinea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea.
MTC-00022170
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is not acceptable. Microsoft stole
millions of dollars from competitors. Microsoft destroyed
competitors. Microsoft crippled the IT industry. Microsoft crippled
the users of IT. Microsoft must not be rewarded for doing these
things. Microsoft must never be allowed to repeat these things.
Michael Creed
MTC-00022171
From: Henri Slettenhaar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18pm
Subject: Settlement microsoft
It is a bad idea.
Henri J.Slettenhaar,
President,
Silicon Valley Association
15 route de Collex (Webster University Campus
B15
CH-1293 BELLEVUE-GENEVA, Switzerland
phone: + 41 22 774 02 06 mobile + 41 79 255 89 59
MTC-00022172
From: Brock N. Cordeiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:17pm
Subject: Stop the Anti-Microsoft Witchhunt
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,
Brock N. Cordeiro
15 Sagamore Drive
Dartmouth, MA
02748-1261
508-979-8930-Phone
508-996-4622-Fax
[email protected]
MTC-00022173
From: Ryan Churchill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
String that sucka up! He should fry.
(...might want to investigate some of the shady things in the
past as well...)
Ryan R. Churchill
Computer Science Major / Art Major / Information Tech Major
Northern Maine Technical College
University of Maine System
MTC-00022174
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27137]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the settlement that is being proposed is a bad idea. It
seems that it only further improves Microsofts position as a
monopoly in the computer software business.
The money being donated to schools sounds like a good idea, but
Microsoft is getting off cheap. Here is one of the richest companies
in the world and getting richer everyday. They are placing a value
on their software that is way above the actual cost to them. Once
the software has been donated, that does nothing to train the
teachers that will be using it. This also further entrenches them in
the education market. When it comes time to update that software,
who do you think will get the revenue? It is almost like Microsoft
is investing in the school system instead of paying a penalty for
their practices.
I do not know enough about the technical side of the proposal to
open
Microsoft systems to developers. I would say that Microsoft has
done a lot in the past to close out developers and make changes to
their own systems so that they exclude other software. If they have
done this all along, what makes us think that a couple of auditors
could keep up with them now. This industry changes so rapidly that
Microsoft will soon be able to live by the "letter of the
agreement", but work around it to close people out again.
I don't know what the answer is, but this slap on the wrist is
nothing to the Bully of the Market.
Eric Irwin
Saint Joseph, MI 49085
MTC-00022175
From: alex verhoeven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is abhorrent, and
needs to be seriously reconsidered. In the time this case has been
drawn out, two new Microsoft products have been allowed to dominate
the market thus extending the monopoly hold Microsoft has on our
industry, and ultimately on the world at large through it's
operating systems.
This has to stop now. Please do the right thing and allow the IT
industry to be able to hold it's own against giants who destroy
everyone else's opportunity to be able to play on a level playing
field in the development of software code.
Thank you for your time.
alex verhoeven-multimedia developer
[email protected]://webslingerZ.com
w: 919.933.1222
w: 800.666.5773
m: 919.824.7318
MTC-00022176
From: Verne Zeller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN/D.O.J. is the doj in support of our
competitive, capitalistic system? FREE enterprise has allowed our
country to prosper so far, why the sudden show of favoritism? aol
has experienced monumental growth during this litigation period,
while microsoft has been hindered by suggested illegalities.
owning both stocks, i'd prefer the company i invest in prosper
by getting better and competing more vigorously, rather than
following the destructive path of legal action (whining). let's get
back to business--
verne zeller
aol stockholder
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022177
From: Bradley Witteman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. / Sir,
I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed
Microsoft Settlement.
I have been a user of Macintosh computers since my first Lisa in
1983 and of WinTel computers since I built my first Heath V-20 kit
in 1984.
My whole family with the exception of myself are teachers... my
mother for 26 years to the severely retarded and autistic, my father
to engineering students at a college, my brother to nursing and
computer science students at a college, my other brother to third
grade Spanish-speaking kids and my sister to first grade speaking-
speaking kids.
Each and every one of these five teachers has used a Macintosh
to do everything from keeping attendance, creating class activities,
authoring tests, writing grants, running class presentations,
teaching their students about computers to writing correspondence to
administrators and families.
I know my family better than anyone, and am the de facto IT
support guy for them... they would never get any of these activities
done if they were forced to use Windows computers... and any minute
that you tie up with technological mumbo-jumbo is a minute you are
stealing from their students.
I appreciate that there is a "digital divide" that
exists in this country, however, I strongly disagree with the idea
that allowing Microsoft to foster future consumption of their
products is the way to ameliorate this situation. Take Microsofts
billion dollars in cash, and allow those most needy school districts
to make their own decision on the technology they would like to
deploy. [I would also probably structure a temporary office to
disperse this cash to ensure that as much of this money as possible
gets into the school administrators hands while trying not to create
yet another bureaucracy in Washington that will outlive its original
purpose].
The only way that we are going to continue to have a vibrant
computer industry is to foster alternatives to the mainstream. If
Microsoft had been in a vacuum since 1984, they would never have
copied the Macintosh user interface, would never have bothered to
write office applications to compete with WordPerfect and Lotus
1-2-3, would never have created Money to compete with
Quicken, would never have authored Publisher to compete with Adobe
PageMaker, would never have written Internet Explorer to compete
with Netscape Navigator.
Im glad that Im no longer staring into an amber display at a
command line interface, arent you?
If you have any questions you may contact me at:
Bradley J. Witteman
[email protected]
Best regards,
Brad
MTC-00022178
From: Robert van Gent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. If nothing else, it lacks
an effective enforcement mechanism, and Microsoft has consistently
shown in the past that it will disregard any injunctions without
teeth.
Robert van Gent
US Citizen
MTC-00022179
From: bob carlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Trial
This email is to register my opinion about the Microsoft
antitrust trial.
I believe that the settlement should require Microsoft to
disclose not just its internal operating system interfaces and
protocols, but the entire source code for its operating systems. I
am not advocating that competitors be given free rein to rewrite the
operating system and distribute their own versions of it, just that
competitors be given the source code so that developers can know how
best to interface to Microsoft's operating system.
Microsoft has abused its position as a monopolistic source of
operating systems by providing unstable operating systems and then
pushing new versions of the operating systems onto the marketplace,
at a cost of about $100 per version. The company has not used its
position to develop good value software for the public, only
software that maximizes its own profits.
Microsoft Corporation has a history of predatory and unfair
business practices. At one time, Microsoft forced OEM computer
manufacturers to include Microsoft's operating system on all
personal computers that they manufactured. Microsoft was forced to
discontinue this. Another example of unfair business practices was
Microsoft's warnings that other operating systems would not operate
properly with applications for IBM-compatible personal computers. At
that time, a company called Data Research was selling an operating
system called DR-DOS. By all accounts I have heard, DR-DOS was fully
compatible with the applications written for IBM-compatible personal
computers. By spreading false information, Microsoft eliminated
competition in the marketplace.
The settlement also provides that computer manufacturers and
software developers will be free to do business with Microsoft's
competitors without fear of retaliation. That provision of the
settlement is an implicit admission that Microsoft has used its
power
[[Page 27138]]
in the marketplace to retaliate against manufacturers and developers
in the past. Those are examples of Microsoft's prior unfair business
practices. Currently, Microsoft is accused of monopolistic practices
that have hampered competitors? efforts to develop applications to
run on Microsoft Windows operating systems. The proposed settlement
would require Microsoft to disclose internal operating system
interfaces and protocols. Given Microsoft's past history of unfair
practices, what mechanism will be in place to ensure that Microsoft
abides by the terms of the settlement?
Microsoft is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly. Defining
a monopoly as the only provider of a good or service to the market,
Microsoft qualifies as a monopoly because it has nearly all of the
market share for operating systems for personal computers. The only
other viable operating systems for personal computers are Apple
Computer's Macintosh operating system and Linux. But these systems
together only have about 5 percent of market share. And are not
really viable competitors in marketplace for IBM-compatible
operating systems. Microsoft publishes a new version of its Windows
operating system about once every two years, with the pace
increasing in the last few years.
However, succeeding versions of the operating system have not
necessarily provided value-added to consumers (both home users and
business users). I work in the field of computer security and I am
very aware that Microsoft operating systems for network servers are
less secure and more prone to crashing than other operating systems
for network servers, such as the various types of Unix operating
systems. And workstation operating systems are notorious for
instability. Microsoft itself tacitly admits that its Windows
operating systems for PCs are unstable when it advertises that each
new version will be more stable than the previous version.
MTC-00022180
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:16pm
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,
Victor De Croix
706 Grandview Way
Metamora, IL 61548-9125
MTC-00022181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gentlemen:
The pursuit of Microsoft is ludicrous when viewed by computer
users across America. It is fueled by government avarice and not
harm to customers and users. Show me where you have thousands of
people screaming that they have been harmed. I used to think that
antitrust actions were pursued because the noble American consumer
was being abused by evil businessmen. Oh, I see, it isn't necessary
to prove that they have been harmed or that they are too stupid to
know they have been harmed. The "Government" knows
better. Well, go find another lawyer employment case because this
one is a clear cut case of judicial abuse. This is persecution not
prosecution. Where were you all when real criminals were looting
Enron???? As Thomas Paine would say, the only thing lacking here is
common sense.
Sincerely,
William P Donovan
5292 Stonehedge Court
Yorba Linda, California 92886
MTC-00022182
From: Mary Stearns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this unfair action! Where would this sort of thing
stop if this passes??? Thank you for your sane thinking on this.
mary stearns
MTC-00022183
From: Doug Gorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough! Dont let AOL continue rip off the American taxpayer.
Obviously they want to undermine the current settlement in order to
compete in the IT industry the only way they know how, with
lawsuits.
Truly Disapointed,
Doug Gorman
MTC-00022184
From: Jim Kuska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I find it disturbing that another lawsuit is being brought
forward by AOL during the time the judge is trying to resolve the
earlier lawsuit. This to me this seems a waste of resources both
from the Govt. and private enterprise point of view. I would to see
the settlement be what the states have agreed to and then lets get
this issue behind us.
Respectfully,
James J. Kuska
common taxpaper
MTC-00022185
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
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,
Robert Saunders
P.O. Box 1203
Stanwood, WA 98292-1203
MTC-00022186
From: Tony Bruton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement is unfair and unethical.
Microsoft has a history of undermining opposition such as different
Operating Systems and internet browsers through less than legal
means.
MTC-00022187
From: Wooster, Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment period
on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. I am opposed to the
current proposed settlement. It does address the monopolistic
practices practised by Microsoft.
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.
Thank you.
Steve Wooster
17745 Radbourne CT,
Monument Co 80132
MTC-00022188
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
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
[[Page 27139]]
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,
Lisa Vidikan
11110 Ohio Avenue
Suite 200
Los ANgeles, CA 90025
MTC-00022189
From: Joseph Sheehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-way too lenient
As one who is in IT at a large telecom corporation, I cannot
help but be increasingly upset by the court procedures. Microsoft
has an attitude that they need to take over all areas of the
computing world-including the internet. My son thinks that the
government is cotowing to them. Microsoft seems to be doing
everything to make Netscape, Apple computer, JAVA, various flavors
of UNIX (Linux) have ever increasing hard time holding onto their
market share. They make me, my wife-everyone have to constantly
upgrade Netscape versions on home and work computers to stay able to
read web pages for our jobs. They have gotten lots of companies to
use their web server software and then use that to leverage making
Netscape obsolete. In the newest version OS, XP, we cannot just
upgrade Netscape, we have to completely deinstall first. They are
constantly forcing Internet Explorer on everyone, including Apple
(we have three at home.) Maybe it wouldn't seem so bad if their
software worked, but it is very poor design and unstable compared to
UNIX and MacOS. When the government hesitates to lean on Microsoft
in not wanting to hurt/interfere with companies, they don't realize
Microsoft is hurting all the rest of the companies in this country
with very poor, high maintenance software.
Thank you for your time
Joe Sheehan
MTC-00022190
From: Shelby Thornton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Mocrosoft is a bad proposal. It in
no way addresses the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft, and as
such, promotes Microsoft as a monolpoly in many areas. The
appropriate settlement would promote healthy competition, the
proposed settlement would kill it.
Best Regards,
Shelby Thornton
MTC-00022191
From: Meriby Sweet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs/Mesdames;
The proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad one: it offers
Microsoft a way out of their obligation to obey the law; it provides
for punishment that is meaningless to Microsoft-indeed, gives
them an opportunity to look like good guys!-and allows, by
government edict, the introduction of Microsoft products to the very
classrooms where they have had little success, prmarily because they
have had little interest in serving a low-bid market. Why is the
government becoming Microsoft's marketing pimps?? Do not allow this
Settlement to become final. Determine the actual losses Microsoft
has incurred on its competitors by burying their products with anti-
competitive contracts and then put that money into R&D efforts
for the Open Source Foundation, or other such entities trying to
develop other software for use by business.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Meriby Sweet
CEO, Cynosure: ABA
Phone: 207-781-5124 eFAX: 510-217-4237
Cell: 207-318-4472 www.cynosure-aba.com "Of course
it's hard; it's supposed to be hard. If it were easy everyone would
do it - and then it wouldn't be any fun!"
MTC-00022192
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
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,
Lloyd Ellison
1930 Supplejack Ct
Sugar Land, TX 77479
MTC-00022193
From: Joseph Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I really have problem with this case. Microsoft is a large
company; therefore, it must be bad seems to be the logic driving the
suit. If people don't like the fact that Microsoft is every where
creat a beeter system and market it. If you can not do that shut up
and get out of the way. This entire case is "corperate
welfare" for netscape. I am an individual consumer and this
case is being sold to the public based on a consumer protection/
unfair trade practises line, yet I get no benifits from this case
except that it is now harder to find the icon for the best serch
engine ever invented. Leave Microsoft alone and stop hindering the
development of new technology by wasting Microsofts resources. Every
dollar spent defending this suit keeps me, the ordinary computer
user, one dollar further from the next technology and it drives up
the price of the technology that I wish to buy and use today.
Joe Olson
2107 Green Valley Dr.
Janesville, WI 53546
MTC-00022194
From: Nathaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I believe that the Microsoft settlement as it
stands now would be a bad idea. I hate the fact that I am all but
forced to use Microsoft products due to the lack of competition in
the PC OS market. While there are...or at least there were a good
deal of options, the only option now as far as alternative operating
systems seems to be linux and then you are forced to rely upon the
generosity of others to create enough software to make your machine
usable for everyday tasks. I was an ex-beos user but after the
dissolution of the company and just about every major coporate
player pulling out of the market, I have had to revert back to an MS
platform so that I could accomplish any sort of productivity at
home. As a student, I have very little funds to spend on operation
systems which is why BeOS was such an attractive offer. I paid 60
dollars once and any incremental update was free, the R4.5 update
having been sent to me in the form of a CD. After that, I need only
pay 30 dollars for any major upgrade. Linux isn't an option as I
would face many of the same problems I faced with BeOS. While there
is more support, there isn't any viable commercial support, most
companies denying any request to port their programs to other
systems other than windows because they realize that as things stand
now, it would be an attempt in futility. What is to guarantee that
the operating system will last. Even IBM had trouble competing with
Microsoft with their OS/2 platform, I was stung by Microsoft then
when IBM decided to no longer support OS/2 shortly after MS released
Windows 95 and NT 4. Personally, I would like to see tougher
restrictions placed on Microsoft and their business practices
closely watched. I would also like to see a change in services run
by microsoft as I find it a bit...unfair that I must use Internet
Explorer to have full functionality when accessing my hotmail
account, and I think that as a user, I should be given the option of
what software I want to have installed by default with a new OS
instillation. If I don't want IE or MSN Explorer or MSN Messenger, I
should be given the option to not have them installed.
-N
MTC-00022195
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
[[Page 27140]]
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,
Lloyd Ellison
1930 Supplejack Ct
Sugar Land, TX 77479
MTC-00022196
From: Rut Newman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Government,
I believe that the Microsoft settlement that was reached, was
not extensive enough. I believe it should be revised again and made
more "fair" to the consumer.
Thank you for your time,
Rut Newman
MTC-00022197
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish this case could be ended and Microsoft could get on with
improving the world of us computer users. I have used MS95, 98 and
now ME and have always been very satisfied with their operation. I
was not coerced into using these products, I did so because they had
better systems than anyone else had to offer. The prices I paid were
fair.
Now AOL is suing MS and it is a ridiculous suit. They are doing
more to push unwanted stuff onto us users than MS. I have been using
AOL since 1995, now I am beginning to wonder if I should continue.
In just the past week, several of the members of our computer have
dropped AOL. They are getting to pricey and to pushy and I do not
think their equipment is adequate for the number of people they are
serving. It is sometimes almost impossible to log on. If you call
them regarding a problem they most often want to mess with your
computer instead of admitting they are having a temporary problem.
Thank you.
Leslie Reitz,
6209 E. McKellips Rd. #375,
Mesa, AZ 85215
MTC-00022198
From: Carl Kipp
To: Microsoft ATR,Rense Mark (GEL MSX),Dr-Johnston Wil...
Date: 1/24/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
subject=Microsoft Settlement
MS Anti-trust. Tunny Act Comment.
-World "Dumb-in-Nation"!
My comment in the MS Anti-trust case
Carl Kipp
Columbus, OH, 43202
In Unauthorized Windows 95, Andrew Schulman (wizard &
editor) has many quotes from the DoJ vs MS ["settled"
out of court, 1994!] including his own congressional testimony. One
was from a MS VP who said "...my job is to see that Microsoft
gets a fair share of the application market. I define that as
100%."
Perfidy.
This case is an outgrowth of that one. MS agreed to not bundle
the browser, did it anyway and claimed it was built-in. A lie, as
testimony showed. I own 98Lite a program which merely uninstalls the
IE browser. Drug on the market. MS's recent "$1 Billion"
settlement proposal is typically self-serving. They account their
$10 MS Office package cost as "$600" retail AND hook
students in the education market. This is like letting the TOBACCO
companies pay their FINES in cartons of CIGARETTES!
Or Carlos Lehder, of the Medellin cartel pay fines in cocaine
packets!
Judge T.P. Jackson did compare MS to a dealership. Truly M$ vs.
U.S.!
It was reported last year the MS lobbied Congress to get YOUR
DoJ budget cut! Is the USA a Banana Republic? Other Damages to
Society:
Microscoff is bad for innovation. [See Caldera's suit for damage
to DR-DOS. See Borland.].
Microsloth is bad for programmers. [You don't program, you use
MFC objects. Dumb.] Microstuff is bad for IT. [No one understands
their proprietary stuff. Even MS! See IIS buffer over run. See the
"FBI warns MS about security". See Universal P'nP holes]
Microscruff is bad for ZDNet, a media company. [Users have given
up understanding. ZD loses readers looking for enlightenment. They
are since under new management.] ZDNet editor Kingman said "No
single company, not even Microsoft, is the enemy." WRONG.
MS=Dumbination The GATES to Dumb-in-Nation!
Carl Kipp
Columbus OH, 43202
MTC-00022199
From: Dan Caless
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my support for
Microsoft and against any actions the government may take against
it. Microsoft has earned it's great success. It did not achieve it
through any sort of coercive means, such as special government
protection or subsidies. It did not use actual coercion against it's
competitors at all-everything it did was through voluntary
agreements with other parties, whether those parties were
particularly happy with the agreements or not. Therefore Microsoft's
competitors have nothing to complain about: all Microsoft's actions
were legitimate business activities that should be protected by the
government, not punished by it.
I consider the anti-trust laws one of the worst corruptions of
law that has ever occurred in this country. They are non-objective
in that they have a very wide scope of interpretation so a business
has no way of knowing ahead of time if it is guilty or innocent of
breaking them. Virtually every business breaks them in that every
business dominates some kind of niche, and every business responds
to competitors" price and product changes. Like Microsoft,
every business works hard to get consumers to use their products and
undercut competitors. Hence enforcement is very politicized and
arbitrary, often the result of what party is in office and the
influence of the competitors, consumer advocates, etc. They are
Soviet-style-the government can threaten any business with
them and use them as a whip to cow companies into doing what the
government wants. They are clearly the product of envy, and
historically they've been used to bring down the best and most
successful companies in the country.
Finally, I'm horrified that persecuting Microsoft might slow
down technological progress. The government is persecuting a company
that spends billions on R&D and product development. Because
Microsoft is so widely used, incorporating new features into it's
products greatly speeds up their distribution, which speeds up
people using and implementing them. The result is that people and
companies can do more with their software and raise their
productivity sooner. One important reason why most people have
settled on Microsoft products is because they're a standard already.
That greatly benefits users because there's a depth of talent
available to work with them and users don't have to waste time
dealing with different software producers and incompatible products.
The standardization around Microsoft makes computing easier, more
productive, and speeds new technology distribution, all of which
greatly benefits us economically and raises our standard of living,
and so makes all of us materially better off.
I would like to see the government totally drop the persecution
of Microsoft. Quite the opposite, it should affirm that it protects
the right to property and liberty of the shareholders of Microsoft.
The purpose of government is not to protect the incompetent or weak
or to legislate envy and hatred of success; it's to protect
everyone's, including Bill Gates", right to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Caless
Chelmsford, MA.
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022200
From: Kevin Garrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
[[Page 27141]]
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I totally support the decision of the Department of Justice to
settle the Microsoft antitrust case. The concessions that Microsoft
has made adequately address the concerns that Microsoft has, or
will, engage in anticompetitive behavior.
Microsoft has demonstrated good faith by agreeing to terms that
go well beyond what was initially at issue in the lawsuit. They have
agreed to disclose its code for its competitors" use. They
have agreed not to legally obligate third parties to exclusively
distribute or promote Windows technology. They have agreed to be
subjected to monitoring by a technical oversight committee. The
threat of anticompetitive behavior is greatly diminished by these
types of terms. The only downside to the agreement is that more of
the states did not sign on to the settlement. The settlement
agreement is obviously well thought out. It was arrived at after a
long period of negotiating by the parties. There is no reason to
continue the litigation.
I appreciate your consideration of these comments. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Garrison
MTC-00022201
From: Kurt Yoder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is fair.
Microsoft should be forced to change its monopolistic practices, and
a weak settlement does not accomplish this.
Kurt Yoder
Sport & Health network administrator
MTC-00022202
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:20pm
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,
Doris Lloyd
5107 Oak Hill Road
Delray Beach, FL 33484
MTC-00022203
From: Kyle Bresin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many other parts of the settlement that concern me,
but have included only my main concern for brevity.
I would like to comment on two elements of the proposed
Microsoft settlement that I believe do not serve the Public Interest
in any significant way, and which, I believe, are particularily
necessary to ensure that Microsoft stops abusing it's operating
system monopoly. The settlement should specifically prevent
Microsoft from integrating it's operating system and applications
too closely, this is the only way to make sure there is room for
other microsoft application compatible operating systems to enter
into the market. This requires two steps. One, that the court ensure
that Microsoft publishes it's APIs. This does nothing to harm a
legitimate Microsoft, in fact, having clearly defined and abstracted
APIs between the OS and it's applications is considered to be
"best practices" in the software field. A seemingly
reasonable request for one of the most successful software companies
in the world.
The second step is to prevent the current definitions
(specifically definitions A, J, K, U need revision) of API and
Middleware that have been crafted in such a way to exclude key
Microsoft products, along with creating a half-dozen loopholes that
are clear as day to anyone with sufficient technical knowledge. The
actual remedies are inconsequential as long as Microsoft is allowed
to dictate when and where they have to apply them! An extensive
rewrite of the current definitions seems in order, or, at the very
least, using the definitions from the original finding of fact...
Respectfully,
kyle.
Kyle Bresin
MTC-00022210
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Now it's AOL again muddying the waters! This company, one of
which I use for my Internet uses, should get on with their business
and stop whining about the success of Microsoft. Microsoft has done
more for the high tech industry, and created more job opportunities
than all of the other tech companies combined. It's a waste of the
DOJs resources to hear these issues. Let Microsoft get on with the
business they know best, developing the necessary software that ALL
of use, in one form or another. Our country was built on
invisionaries that had a dream, and carried that dream to
fulfillment! LEAVE MICROSOFT TO THEIR BUSINESS!
MTC-00022228
From: Eduardo Matus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern, I am writing as a very concerned
consumer in reference to the ordeal happening with Microsoft. I am
very concerned at the fact that this is even happening to begin
with. Microsoft is a company whose products are very much in high
demand and are also highly dependable and reliable. I believe that
this very dedication to product quality is what makes them
successful. When Microsoft was charged with Antitrust violations I
wanted to know just how this came about. I later found that that
this is not even a consumer driven issue. I found out that
Microsoft's competitors who did not have the same amount of
innovation and quality are the ones who began the whole process. In
essence these whole proceedings are highly immoral: You are
attempting to punish someone for being innovated and dedicated to
EARNING wealth through putting out a better product. I work with
computers quite often and I am very discriminate when it comes to
what I buy. I don't just buy it because it is there. By breaking up
Microsoft you are in essence providing welfare for the less
competent companies and therefore I will be forced to buy product
from someone who is not as good. This is preposterous and completely
unacceptable. To think that in this country out of all places, a
company is being punished for being efficient and successful, while
the ones that are doing less of a job get the rewards, makes me sick
and leaves me little reason to even want to enter the marketplace as
a businessman for fear of being successful. If you punish Microsoft,
you will set a precedence which in turn will destroy everything good
about American business: We will show our children that being
mediocre is better that achieving your highest potential, that
knowing people in high places is better than relying on knowledge
and experience, and worst of all, you will leave us with no
philosophical ground for us to stand on against anyone that may
disagree with our way or life and our country. Many things are
riding on this decision. I hope for the sake of the future of
American (and worldwide business for that matter) that you make the
right decision. Punishing the successful and rewarding the
incompetent is UNAMERICAN and highly UNETHICAL.
Yours Truly,
Ed Matus
MTC-00022230
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:21pm
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.
[[Page 27142]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Muoio
6218 Preakness
Etiwanda, CA 91739-9585
MTC-00022231
From: joanpeterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constantly blaming Microsoft for all problems is outrageous!
Settle this and let Microsoft innovate. The economy would be better
off for it!
MTC-00022233
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea
Chris Latham, MCSE, CCNA
Network Engineer
Majiq Systems and Software
8343 154th Ave NE
Redmond, WA
98052-3865
mailto:[email protected]
425.881.7100
MTC-00022238
From: Dale Patterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
I believe the settlement you've reached with Microsoft is fair,
just and should be implemented. This and other lawsuits filed by
their "so called competitors" are and have been
detrimental to the furthance of technology and at greater expense. I
have not been overcharged in the purchase of any Microsoft product.
I first began using the internet in 1996. My ISP provided,
Earthlink promoted the use of Netscape's Naviagator Browser which I
used excusively for two years. In 1999, I loaded Microsoft's
Interner Exployer and began comparing the two browsers. After a six
month trial of using both, I determined that iE worked faster and
better than Netscape's and now use it exclusively. I do keep the
latest version of both browsers on my back-up computer for continual
comparsions. Products of other competing software, i.e. Real
Products, Word Perfect etc. are also stored on my back-up computer.
I've been harmed more financally by the DoJ's lawsuit against
Microsoft which contributed to the decline of Tech Stocks and a slow
down in the enconomy.
Please complete this lawsuit and allow technology to again
progress.
Dale Patteron
MTC-00022246
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
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,
ROBERT LANDRY
880 TULLY ROAD
#23
HOUSTON, TX 77079
MTC-00022248
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24pm
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, Susan Bolser 3709 Neiheisel Ave Cincinnati, OH
45248-3127
MTC-00022249
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:26pm Subject" Please leave Microsoft
alone!
First of all, thank you for letting me submit this opinion.
My main objection to this case is that it was brought to help
Microsoft's competition, not to help American consumers. The intent
of antitrust is to protect the consumer. As a consumer myself of
both Microsoft (hereafter "MS") and other software, I
fail to see how MS has hurt me. Does it injure me in any way to give
me free software? I am capable of not using it if I don't like
it-which is, in fact, what I do with all those free AOL CDs!
In my job, I now use the MS Office Suite on a daily basis.
Before we had this software, life was much more complicated. The
files wouldn't copy, for example, from Paradox (a database) to Lotus
123 (a spreadsheet). I have heard people arguing that their company
offers a better product than MS. That is for the market to decide,
not the courts. For my purposes, compatability between the
applications is very important, so I choose MS.
Success should not be punished in America! Bill Gates was not
born "King of Software", he and his company worked hard
for years to become the leader. They should be rewarded as the
market sees fit. Windows 2000 and Windows ME will be obsolete soon,
and MS has no guarantee that the MS replacement will be the what the
consumer wants in 2004. MS will rise or fall according to the will
of the marketplace. Any of the competing companies could come up
with a better replacement operating system. At least one already
exists: LINUX, and it is available to anyone FREE for the
downloading! How can MS compete with that? But it does !
Please let Microsoft continue improving our lives, our work, and
helping to keep the USA the world economic leader!
Brooks Gatlin
Spring, TX
MTC-00022250
From: John Laur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not in support of the proposed settlement for the reasons
listed in the following paragraphs. I have read plenty of other
arguments that the settlement is poor; however, I don't feel that I
understand enough about those reasons to comment. I'm not a lawyer,
so I apologize for the lack of extensive references.
It does not take into account systems which can or could be made
compatible with the Microsoft Windows operating environment.
It fails to address the issue of Microsoft strong-arming OEM's
to limit their freedoms to install what they want on machines they
sell.
It fails to provide a means by which the agreement would be
enforced if enacted.
This is getting ridiculous. Microsoft continues to blow smoke
and buy years of time. Computer hardware manufacturers targeting the
consumer market generally produce equipment that meets certain
standard and documented criteria so that software (ie any software
such as an operating system) can be run on the machine. Due to the
complex nature of modern personal computers, application software no
longer runs directly on the hardware. Operating systems exist to
provide an abstraction layer and further refinement to a standard
interface to allow application software to be developed more
efficiently. The problem with what Microsoft does is that it
continues to make its own interfaces proprietary or undocumented, so
that it becomes extremely difficult to develop applications which
work efficiently on multiple platforms or use applications which use
this interface on other platforms which cannot support it.
In the end, this ends up hurting the consumer tremendously. The
constant tweaks and changes Microsoft has to make to its
"Operating System" to sustain this level
[[Page 27143]]
of secrecy only ends up ending in an overly complex system to
support the many versions of older interfaces that exist-
obsoleted by the simple fact that they are old enough for others to
have figured them out!
Thank you for soliciting comments.
Sincerely,
John Laur
MTC-00022251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:22pm
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 Brennan
529 W. 215th St. Carson, CA 90745-1930
MTC-00022252
From: Bryan J Newman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
The Microsoft Settlement is full of holes. It will not do
anything of consquence re: Microsofts stranglehold on competition,
the settlement should be scrapped immediately.
Thanks,
Bryan Newman
Programmer/Analyst-ED Data Warehouse
[email protected]
MTC-00022253
From: captain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can't write more than a sentence without becoming utterly
livid. You should fine MS into non-existence and compensate those
who have been most injured by the Evil Juggernaut over the past two
decades. The list is LONG.
MTC-00022254
From: Byron York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is so completely obvious that the settlement worked out
between Microsoft and John Ashcroft is so fatally flawed and written
*BY* Microsoft, that the only remedy that is available is to throw
the whole thing out and tell Microsoft and their lobbyists to try
again.
The DOJ anti-trust division knows this, and I am sure that the
attorneys there that actually have integrity are fuming about the
way Ashcroft and Bush have:
(1) cut their funding
(2) took remedies off the table before even entering in to
settlement talks
(3) completely and utterly capitulated to Microsoft's ever want
It really makes me sick what a little(or large in Bush's case)
campaign contribution can get you.
JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE FOR SALE IN THIS COUNTRY.
I hope the American Anti-Trust Institute lawsuit against the DOJ
and Microsoft prevails. There were so many secret meetings between
the DOJ and Microsoft in violation of the Tunney Act that it makes
Cheney's secret Energy Task Force look like a bake sale.
P.S. Unlike Bush and Ashcroft, I am not afraid to put my name on
my beliefs:
Byron Bernard York
2155 Goldsmith
Houston, TX 77030
713-416-4487
MTC-00022255
From: Paul Brenner
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement. I do not believe it is in the interest
of consumers to continue this litigation.
Thanks,
Paul Brenner
MTC-00022256
From: David C. Donaldson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir;
Separating Microsoft in two, one with the operating system, the
other with applications, is a great solution and remedy for the
market extortion and abuse of the monopoly power exorcised by
Microsoft.
Also, I'd like to see the company forced to provide the
operating system source code to competitors that make both
commercial and consumer programs that run on all windows operating
systems. For how long, I don't know. Perhaps for a time to be
determined by the court monitoring the marketplace.
I am a retail consumer. Everyone I know using the inferior
operating system made by Microsoft suffers direct harm from their
market abuse. I wonder how long the legal system will tolerate that.
I am hoping you will take a very, very strong stand against
extortion and monopoly market power abuse.
David Donaldson
3208 El Sobrante Street
Santa Clara, CA 95051-3722
Tele: 408-241-3630
[email protected]
MTC-00022257
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:24pm
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,
thomas swiggum
1318 ontare rd
santa barbara, CA 93105-1941
MTC-00022258
From: Alex Nicksay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has long been a domineering force in the computing
field. As an American, I firmly believe in the necessity of a free,
competitive, thriving market. However, Microsoft has been found to
violate both the spirit and the letter of the law in this regard,
and drastic action must be taken to curb such behavior. With their
operating system on over roughly 95% of all computers in use today,
the average consumer sees little choice. In fact, he/she sees no
choice; he/she assumes a Windows-based PC and Windows-centric
software are the only solution.
The proposed settlement does very little to place any restraint
on Microsoft. The proposed body to be placed at Microsoft is small,
incomprehensive, and little more than show. Drastic action must be
taken to change a drastic situation. One may point to the antitrust
proceedings against AT&T many years ago. It's division
effectively stimulated competition in a stagnate market, while still
leaving AT&T with substantial business interests. It remains a
viable player to this day. I propose a similar treatment for
Microsoft-a division into two or preferably three smaller
companies. Judge Jackson ruled as such, and there seems to be no
reason not to uphold such a penalty because his findings (that
Microsoft is a monopoly) have been upheld.
The proposed settlement contains specific language that does
and, more specifically, will not apply to the appropriate Microsoft
products. Example: in previous antitrust cases, specific language
was used, regarding the integration of Windows95 and Internet
Explorer. By the time the court was settled, Microsoft had delayed
long enough to release Windows98 and later products, eliminating the
need for compliance. In this trial, attention should be paid to
making any settlements or penalties include broad
[[Page 27144]]
enough language to apply to future Microsoft products and services.
Only then will Microsoft cease to be a monopoly.
Furthermore, the proposed settlement includes measures that
would inject a relatively balanced, competitive education market
with a large foundation of Microsoft products, services, and
software. Contrary to Microsoft's assertions, Microsoft would be the
primary and ultimate beneficiary of such a "solution".
The cost of reproducing software is negligible; the cost (especially
in time) of maintaining refurbished computers is very high; the
established software and hardware would influence schools to
maintain brand-loyalty to Microsoft for convenience, when otherwise
a competing product would have chosen. Microsoft's proposed
settlement does not effectively restrict further monopolistic
practices, extends Microsoft's base into more of a market unfairly,
and does not sufficiently benefit the people (every personal
computer user, of either Windows or a Window competitor).
Therefore, it should be rejected and harsher penalties should be
applied.
Respectfully,
Alex Nicksay
Student, Computer Science, Film Studies
Columbia University
New York, NY
MTC-00022259
From: Leon D. Shaner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Sir or Madam,
I believe that the proposed settlement fails to adequately
punish Microsoft for their repeated predatory and anti-competitive
behavior.
MicroSoft already has a majority share of the Operating System
install-base, yet they have a long history of engaging in scare
tactics and other threat-based means to PREVENT hardware vendors
from the following:
(1) bundling non-Microsoft OS environments (such as OS/2 or
Linux)
(2) bundling non-Microsoft browsers (such as Netscape)
(3) bundling non-Microsoft multi-media support applications
(such as RealAudio)
(4) placing icons / menu-picks for non-Microsoft internet
services in prominent locations on the desktop and start menus.
By preventing a hardware vendor from exercising discretion RE:
which OS and components to bundle, Microsoft has, in effect, limited
consumer choice and all but driven third-party software and service
vendors out of the market.
Regards,
-bsLeon
[email protected] // Internet Architect
Central Area Technology Practice
Sun Professional Services
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Office: 313-317-2121 // Fax:
630-775-0852
MTC-00022260
From: Dorothy Winick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft has done fine and should not be sued again.
MTC-00022261
From: Randy Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just because the president is in the back pocket of industry
doesn't mean that the doj should be shirking their responsibility
and GIVING IN when they are supposed to be representing and
defending the American People against criminal acts such as those of
Microsoft.
Stop persecuting foreign nations in unconstitutional manors and
get back to your JOBS.
Randy
MTC-00022262
From: Dan Eyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed
settlement with Microsoft. In my opinion it completely fails to
either punish Microsoft's past bad behavior or to in any way
inhibit future bad behavior. I do not consider the settlement to be
in the interest of the American public. I have worked as a software
engineer for more than 12 years.
Daniel J. Eyer
MTC-00022263
From: David Abbott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The current settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. I abhor
being limited to just Microsoft products in order to be productive
at homeand for work. The other options out there are extreamly
costly over time or are nonpractical for day to day operations not
to mention the lack of compatibility with them.
Thank You,
D. Abbott
MTC-00022264
From: Max Heffner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am extremely disapointed with the settlement and believe it
does nothing to punish or prevent Microsoft from further abusing
their monopoly. It is disapointing to see that a company with large
amount of money can have more influence then the U.S. government. I
did not expect Microsoft to be broken up but at the least I would
have expected the government to take a stand and deny Microsoft the
ability to bundle their middle ware software products with the
Windows operating system. This practice is the most unfair and hurts
alternative software developers/vendors as much as it does the
consumers.
I deserve as much protection as Microsofts stock holders, but
this settlement is exessively liniant towards Microsoft. The DOJ has
failed.
MTC-00022265
From: Niels Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is unfair to the many
companies- small and large-which has lost business
because of Microsoft monopolistic practices.
With kind regards from
Niels Jensen ([email protected]),
Slangerup, Denmark.
MTC-00022266
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:31pm
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,
Ray Ownby
6321 Rd 3.3 NE
Moses Lake, WA 98837
MTC-00022267
From: Vaughn Cato
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does not properly address the situation
and it must be reconsidered. Microsoft must be placed in a position
where it cannot abuse it's monopolistic position.
-Vaughn
MTC-00022268
From: ateepee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:32pm
Subject: Termination of actions against Microsoft
I urge that you terminate all actions against Microsoft for
their "supposedly" anti-trust activities. As far as I am
concerned, the progress of Personal Computers among all the people
of the USA, is largely due to the actions of Microsoft to
standardize the use of most of the software.
Thank you,
T.P. Higgins
MTC-00022269
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27145]]
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern ,
Please do not accept the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
case brought by the Dept of Justice.
This is less than a slap on the hand . In fact I believe that
this will increase the marlet share of MS over time.
Another penalty could be implemented . Such as take the proposed
amount of monies and support implementation of another system . For
example give the schools Macs and support for these systems from the
funds suggested by the settlement.
Please rethink this settlement so that a more fair penalty is
imposed . thanks you
Michael P O'Brien
1047 NE 10th
Seattle Wa. 98125
[email protected]
MTC-00022270
From: Gary Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:33pm
Subject: Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement
Please dd my name to this list.
Gary Heller, Fiserv, S/W Development and QA Manager, VP
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Gary Heller
407-667-3793
[email protected]
MTC-00022271
From: Rosenthal, Neil
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As an American Citizen I am opposed to the current proposed
settlement with Microsoft Corporation. The settlement is frought
with language that will, in essence, allow Microsoft to behave in
ways that the settlement is supposed to disallow. It is incumbent
upon the United States Government, as our representative in this
matter, to reject in its totality, the proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Neil D. Rosenthal
Consultant
James McGuinness & Associates Inc.
[email protected]
518.393.3635
MTC-00022272
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30pm
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,
Jay Haggard
11 Regalia Drive
Novato, CA 94947
MTC-00022273
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:30pm
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,
Jay Haggard
11 Regalia Drive
Novato, CA 94947
MTC-00022276
From: Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Settlement
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. In particular, it
seems to me that the requirement that Microsoft disclose some of its
code interfaces and file formats could be easily evaded without
serious reprisal. Without some less ambiguous language, and more
specific penalty language, Microsoft could well drag its heels to
the point where any would-be competitors would have no chance at all
of interoperating with Microsoft software.
As a consultant in the IT field, I prefer not to be locked into
one vendor. I have heard similar concerns from my clients. Please
don't allow Microsoft to continue to shirk its responsibilities via
the inclusion of weak language in the settlement terms.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Kudla
Albany, NY
[email protected]
MTC-00022277
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:32pm
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,
Jerry Brace
3810 Deer ridge Trail
Beulah, MI 49617-9638
MTC-00022278
From: Travis Fessler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir or Madam,
I disagree with the U.S. Department of Justice's settlement
proposal with Microsoft.
I believe the settlement as written does not provide for
redresses that are in the best interest of the American people and
are not in line with the findings of facts in this case.
Thank you,
Travis Fessler
175 Raintree Rd
Florence, KY 41042
MTC-00022279
From: Stephen Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thanks a lot!
Once again, our government has let us, the tax payers, down. You
people are supposed to represent we the people! How on earth do you
sleep at night. A convicted monopolist is given a slap on the wrist?
And we are supposed to take this? "Awful" doesn't even
come close to how I see this. You people in the DOJ should be
ashamed of yourselves. For I am ashamed that this is how my
government looks out for me. I'm probably wasting my time writing
this e-mail, and if, per chance, any of you wish to discuss this
with me, please feel free to respond at your leisure. Either by e-
mail or snail mail.
Regards;
Stephen Green
4 Lauder Ave.
Pawtucket, R.I.
02860-6218
[email protected]
[[Page 27146]]
MTC-00022281
From: De Chiara, Christopher J.
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find the proposed settlement totally and completely wrong. It
rewards Microsoft for its absolutely illegal behavior, which
continues, despite this case.
I am disappointed that my government has caved in to Microsoft
rather than defend the freedom of choice required in the technology
marketplace to create a healthy and innovative marketplace. This
settlement will allow Microsoft to continue its predatory behavior
and consume a depressed market to the point of globally
monopolization. Please punish them and break them up and impose
stiff and heavy penalties.
Chris De Chiara
4516 Waubansie Lane
Lisle, IL 60532
MTC-00022282
From: Chad Margetts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello...
I believe that the Microsoft settlement is not in the best
interest of the American people, and will not benefit consumers or
businesses in the way that the Department of Justice intends. In
essence, the punishment really does not fit the crime. In fact, it
may even enable Microsoft to participate in more anti-competitive
practices such as undermining the Open Source movement.
I implore you to deny the settlement between the DOJ and
Microsoft.
Thank you.
Chad Margetts
Ron Allen Consulting
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00022283
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
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,
Harold Williams
po box125
Houghton, MI 49931
MTC-00022284
From: Todd Grigsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I'd like to be polite about this, but I can only sum up my
opinion in a single sentence as follows: The proposed Microsoft vs.
DOJ antitrust settlement is a terrible joke.
Forcing Microsoft to put their operating system into schools is
like forcing a beer company to advertise during the Super Bowl.
Where is the penalty? The cost to Microsoft of distributing this
software comes in revenue not realized by selling the software to
the schools, yet this cost is more than repaid in forcing students
to become familiar with and use the operating system that will
become their OS of choice once they graduate and enter the work
force.
I have three better solutions, all of which you've probably
already heard:
1. Break MS into an OS company and an office products company.
No collusion is allowed between these companies.
2. Force MS to fully disclose the complete Windows API. Every
call, every global variable, etc. Also force them to separate
Explorer from the OS as they were instructed to do years ago and
have failed to do.
3. Instead of having MS install Windows in those schools, have
them install new PCs with Linux, new Apples with OSX, new Sun
workstations, new Alphas running OpenVMS, etc. Hardware and OS
vendors would have X number of days to petition to be included in
the list and petitions would be reviewed by a appointed technical
panel based on criteria including but not restricted to a minimum 1%
of current market share. Schools could choose from the platforms
that made the list.
Whatever happens, the idea is to PENALIZE Microsoft, not aid and
abet them. The current penalty is itself an injustice.
Todd Grigsby
Director of R&D, Company Architect
Panoramic Software, Inc.
President, Dream Prods.
MTC-00022285
From: Fred Sampson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case is an
outrage, and I oppose it.
The settlement leaves Microsoft with too much power. The
oversite committee has no actual control or power. There is no
punishment of Microsoft, despite it's having been found guilty of
illegal conduct. Microsoft is given powers that could devastate
open-source software developers. The wording is full of loop-holes
that favor Microsoft. The proposed settlement is far to lenient on a
convicted monopolist.
Fred Sampson
Technical Writer
Business and Technical Journalist
[email protected]
831-728-1339
MTC-00022286
From: Mr. D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a college student at a Major four year university located
in Utah. This semester I get to take Econ 1500 as one of my general
education credits for my major. At first I thought I was really
going to hate this class, but as I read the first three chapters I
noticed that I have become very interested. Part of this interest is
the fact that in my class, the company Microsoft has already been
mentioned at least 10 times.
If you are wondering why read on. We have learned the basics so
far. The U.S. is using some sort of a Free Market Economy system.
The Free Market System is usually efficient, blah blah blah. If you
work for the DOJ you should understand all of this. Anyways the part
where it actually gets interesting is where it talks about Market
FAILURE. "The second case where the market has a failure is
when there is a Market Power" (Quoted from Principles of
Macroeconomics, Second Edition, N. Gregory Mankiw). The best part of
the above quote is the fact that is in the very first chapter of the
book. The book goes on to say that a Market Power can also be called
a monopoly. Anyone that has ever heard of Microsoft has probably
also heard the word monopoly. Now we are getting
somewhere-Right??? The next day in class we go over what we
have read. My professor explains that it is the government's job to
correct market failure. By the way the word government in the above
sentence is referring to you.
Someone asks if that is what is currently happening with
Microsoft. My professor gives out a huge laugh. "Well...it is
supposed to be what is happening, but the government isn't really
doing its job in that area." That quote was from my professor.
So to say the least I am kind of disappointed. My professor also
explained that the government should punish Microsoft. As I thought
about that last sentence I decided that the key word was punish.
Punish means making something worth not doing again.
As I understand the case so far Microsoft has been proven guilty
of anti-trust acts. If so then it is your job to punish Microsoft.
As from what I have heard so far you really haven't proposed
anything that will punish Microsoft. A three person panel who can
look into Microsoft from time to time is a complete joke. That is
like paying a babysitter to watch your safe. The babysitter can't
see what is in the safe they just get to watch it from the outside.
Common, it is your JOB to punish Microsoft. So don't be afraid of
the corporation, no matter how much money they have. You are above
that. Look down into your ethical self, find a punishment suited to
Microsoft that will make them think a hundred times before they try
something like that again.
There is also one last thing that I would like to point out. By
failing in this endeavor you risk the future of many businesses that
don't even exist yet. If a new company were to create a product
superior to something Microsoft created. They would probably be
pushed out in some sort of anti-trust way, unless you punish
Microsoft and they remember the last time they messed with the DOJ
and aren't willing to go there again.
[[Page 27147]]
Hopefully my email hasn't fallen on deaf ears.
I pray that you do your job and correct the market failure so
that we can go on with an even more efficient market.
Daniel Miller
Comments may be sent to [email protected]
P.S. I was not paid by Microsoft or Sun Microsystems to create
or distribute this email. I created this email of my own free will,
and have sent it to you on behalf of myself, Daniel Miller. If
alleged that my email was sent in accordance with either of these
companies or any company for that matter, please disregard because
that isn't true. I am currently unemployed and therefore am doing
this to show my support for anti-trust issues. Especially in the
case of software companies such as Microsoft.
MTC-00022287
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Most Honorable Persons,
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 in preventing, not
aiding Microsoft from continuing it's illegal behavior.
Thank you,
Michael T. Rankin
PO Box 387
Walker Valley, NY 12588
MTC-00022288
From: Aneesh Karve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement is a poor idea.
MTC-00022289
From: mike baldwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement doesn't seem to remedy the monopoly
situation. Microsoft is proposing giving away its own software. That
only HELPS their monopoly. I would like to see a settlement that
fosters alternative operating systems, or an open source version of
Microsofts Operating systems. If windows is open source, Microsoft
won't be able to abuse the monopoly they have over the computer
industry.
The settlement I have read about is NOT acceptable.
Mike Baldwin
PO Box 2861
Socorro, NM 87801
MTC-00022290
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
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,
Gary Berrier
5638Janeru Circle
Macon, GA 31216
MTC-00022291
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:34pm
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,
Marilyn Bush
3524 Jeffrey Street
Muskegon, MI 49441-4335
MTC-00022292
From: scott cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:28pm
Subject: Comments
This recent lawsuit of Microsoft by AOL-TW further highlights
the true motivation of the litigants. The consumer, has not been
harmed. Computing in general is easier and less costly than ever in
history. Please end this waste of taxpayers money, stop these
lawsuits.
Thank you,
Scott Cuddihy
MTC-00022293
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:35pm
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,
Phyllis J. Moran
PO Box 115
Chappell, NE 69129-0115
MTC-00022294
From: Phillip Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38pm
Subject: Journalist Experience
I am very sorry to hear that the anti-trust case will be settled
with so little penalty to Microsoft. With twenty years as a computer
industry journalist to my name, I've seen how much of Microsoft's
success has been due to truly rapacious behavior against
competitors, pushing to exclude competition from the market rather
than to win through better products or prices. My faith that my
government can maintain a truly free market has been severely hurt.
Phillip Robinson
MTC-00022295
From: Richardson, David M
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
End this now, conclude the settlement of Department of Justice
and a bipartisan group of State Attorneys General with Microsoft and
move on to other issues.
david richardson
2963 vinings forest way
vinings, ga 30339
CC:'msfin(a)microsoft.com'
MTC-00022296
From: R. Love
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I honestly believe this settlement is not in favor of the
American people.
Microsoft is using the profits from their illegal actions to buy
their way out of the repercussions of their deeds.
MTC-00022297
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27148]]
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,
Anthony Bowling
23449 hwy 96
Oronogo, MO 64855
MTC-00022298
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
This e-mail is a response to a request for public comments by
the court hearing the case U.S. v. Microsoft. I understand the
request for comments is a part of the penalty phase of the
litigation and Microsoft has been found guilty of violating Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
By virtue of Microsoft's de facto monopoly of the Operating
System (OS) market, I am compelled to use Microsoft products. I
would not use those products if I had the choice. There are two
reasons that I am forced to use Microsoft products. These reasons
provide the rational for my proposed remedies.
First, an overwhelming majority people use the Microsoft OS and
their associated office products. I must communicate with them. If I
can not communicate, I will suffer a great economic loss. This is
commonly referred to as a network effect and Microsoft has
brilliantly exploited it. Second, because Microsoft has kept their
software file formats and interfaces secret, others cannot
functionally duplicate these products.
It is my belief, based on Microsoft's past actions, they wish to
extend their reach beyond the PC desktop to control of networking
protocols for the Internet and act as its gate keeper. This is their
".net" initiative. This would have devastating
consequences for the U.S. economy and security. Microsoft has
stifled innovation by its monopolistic practices. Microsoft products
are notorious for their lack of security and vulnerability to attack
by the technical incompetents.
The remedies I propose in this case are:
1) All specifications for present and future Microsoft file
formats and Operating System Application Programming Interfaces
(API) should be made public. This will help insure that any data or
documentation I create will be available to me in perpetuity. It
will also allow others to create programs that can meaningfully
compete with Microsoft products. Please make no mistake in my intent
for this remedy. The specifications must be made part of the public
domain. Restriction to "commercial" entities is simply
wrong. Open Source software initiatives should be allowed to make
use of this information. Again, my concern is for the availability
and security of the data that I create today going forward into the
future.
2) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in the
public domain and approved by an independent networking protocol
body. I suggest the government request the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) initially preside over such a
networking protocol body as an independent and impartial
organization. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a member of
the IEEE.) Already I see Microsoft limiting access to web sites that
do not use Internet Explorer. This remedy would help prevent
Microsoft from partitioning the Internet into Microsoft and non-
Microsoft spheres.
3) Microsoft products should not be bundled as a hidden cost of
buying a computer. The choice of buying a computer without any
Microsoft products must be present. The real cost of Microsoft
products should be presented to the consumer. Without this, there
will not be meaningful competition in the OS marketplace.
4) Microsoft should be prevented from entering into exclusive
arrangements with computer vendors. These arrangements have been
used as rewards and punishments of computer vendors in the past and
serve only to maintain monopoly status for Microsoft.
Sincerely yours,
John W. Tiede
John Tiede Principal Design Engr Cypress
Semicond Tele:(719) 268-2624
6005 Delmonico Drive, Suite 200, Colo Spgs, CO
80919Fax: (719) 268-2639
MTC-00022299
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DOJ,
IT IS VERY DISTURBING THAT SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY IS BEING SPENT
ON THESE LEGAL BATTLES. MORE LITIGATION IS THE LAST THING WE
CONSUMERS NEED. MICROSOFT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET BACK TO DOING
WHAT IT DOES BEST-CREATING AND IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY TO BENEFIT
OUR PEOPLE AND CIVILIZATION. AOL NEEDS TO FOCUS ON MARKET
COMPETITION AND COOPERATION TO MAKE CONSUMER'S COMPUTING EXPERIENCES
EASIER, NOT WASTE MORE TIME AND RESOURCES IN LITIGATION. LETS END
ALL THIS LITIGATION AND GET BACK TO WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
CONSUMER!
MTC-00022300
From: Sabrina L. Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is important, and healthy for there to be honest
competition in the marketplace, and the Microsoft Settlement does
not go far enough to ensure there is any leeway or room for healthy
competition. The language is unclear and unspecific insofar as what
if any competition is allowable or acceptable. Please reconsider the
testimony and comments you have received from the general public, as
well as those more in a position to address the technical aspects of
this case. Please close the gaps in the current settlement's
language, so as to ensure there is healthy competition and
opportunity for others to develop competing operating systems and
middleware.
Thank you
Sabrina L. Nelson
MTC-00022301
From: Ted Priftis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I as a taxpayer believe that he states case against Microsoft is
ridiculous, Microsoft has been instrumental in building the
technological advantage that the United States has currently. If the
states believe that suing Microsoft will help the taxpayer they are
sorely mistaken, it will only hurt the taxpayer because if the case
involves Internet Explorer than Microsoft will have to sell the
product separately which would cost everyone more money, so in
essence I would be paying twice, once for the cost to take the case
to court and twice when Microsoft sells the individual product, as a
computer user I" am aware that I can use another web browser
to surf the internet. The reason consumers do not use the other
browsers is because the other browsers on the market are inferior,
and harder to use.
Thank You,
Ted (taxpayer)
MTC-00022302
From: mikework
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement doesn't seem to remedy the monopoly
situation. Microsoft is proposing giving away its own software. That
only HELPS their monopoly. I would like to see a settlement that
fosters alternative operating system or an open source version of
Microsofts Operating systems. If windows is open source, Microsoft
won't be able to abuse the monopoly they have over the computer
industry.
The settlement I have read about is NOT acceptable.
Mike Baldwin
PO Box 2861
Socorro, NM 87801
MTC-00022303
From: William H. Sterner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:40pm
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 have carefully reviewed the following comments from
"Mike O'Donnell"
[[Page 27149]]
, and
agree with them in their entirety. Having worked closely with Apple
computer since 1983 as an implementer of their technology at the
University of Chicago, I have often seen the anticompetitive impacts
Microsoft's business practices have had on Apple's technology. I
have very little confidence that the current "remedies"
will be effective in restraining Microsoft.
Yours,
William H. Sterner
Lecturer and
Director of Instructional Laboratories
Computer Science Dept.
University of Chicago
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.
MTC-00022304
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:37pm
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
[[Page 27150]]
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,
Norma Topolinski
410 Presidio Way
Santa Maria, CA 93458
MTC-00022305
From: Bill Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a consumer of software and used of the internet, I am asking
you to find a favorable resolution for Microsoft in the ongoing
litigation and settlement hearings. I originally used Netscape as my
browser but changed to Internet Explorer because it served my needs
better. The technology supplied by Microsoft is important to all of
us. Bill Robinson, Albuquerque New Mexico
MTC-00022306
From: Ozark Refrigeration
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
OZARK REFRIGERATION
P.O. BOX 1897
HARRISON AR 72602
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft case is welcome news. I
understand that the Justice Department is required by law to
entertain comments prior to finalizing the settlement. I strongly
support the settlement.
It is a shame that this case was filed in the first place.
Microsoft is obviously being punished because of its size and its
success. It is a shame that jealousy has this steep a price, as
Microsoft's competitors are clearly motivated by no other reason.
Microsoft has gone the extra mile to resolve this case. It has
agreed to utilize a uniform price list when licensing its Windows
systems to the twenty largest computer makers, and it has agreed to
less restrictive distribution and licensing agreements with its
distributors. Additionally, the Windows system will now be open to
competition from other software companies and programs.
I am glad the federal government has seen the need to resolve
this matter and move forward.
Please stick to your agreement.
cc: Representative Bob Stump
Sincerely,
Blaise Koch
President
MTC-00022307
From: andrew rutherford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
Please get this suit settled as agreed. Deflect the other law
suits. I have no axe to grind. I am a personal user of Microsoft
products. I feel that Microsoft has been unfairly crippled in its
effort to be the best. This will raise prices that I will have to
pay for computer products. Let's forge ahead and not restrict
genuine free enterprise. We need strong economic engines to ring us
out of this recession.
Sincerely,
Andrew M. Rutherford
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00022308
From: Mike denholtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
So the biggest companies in the world are still fighting over
the smallest pockets on earth. It is obvious that that this only
leads to higher prices from all of these companies. STOP the
litigation and let the best software win. No one has twisted my arm
for using one or the other. For the record, of three internet users
in one household, 1 uses one service provider and the other 2 use
another.
Thanks,
Mike
MTC-00022309
From: Chris Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly object to the lenient terms in the Proposed Final
Judgement. This : Fails to properly remedy damages caused by
Microsoft's illegal conduct Appears to lack any enforcement
mechanism.
Allows and encourages significant anti-competitive practices to
continue Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and
Provisions Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently
used by Microsoft Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities
Historically Used by Microsoft Doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems I support the points of view
of the Attorney General of Massachusetts and Dan Kegel.
Chris Barr
21 Riverview Avenue
Wayland, MA 01778
508-788-1542
MTC-00022310
From: CHRIS HAWLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a US citizen currently residing in Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
My concerns with the proposed settlement are as follows and I am
grateful for this chance to list them. Please, in the interests of
restoring a truly competitive environment in the areas of computer
operating systems and office productivity software, consider these
points:
1) Use industry standard definitions for things like
"API". The API's are a huge barrier to entry with any
application who would compete with Microsoft, because they are kept
secret by MS to stifle competition. Any interfaces into Windows or
other applications which are designed to be used by programs or
automated processes should fall into the term API, and it should be
defined in the judgement to be so inclusive.
2) Allow competitors to use the API information to make their
software compatible with Windows.
3) The judgement would allow Microsoft to continue a lot of
anti-competitive practices, many of which could be leveraged to
terrible effect if they were "legitimized" in the court
by not being struck down now.
4) As a user of Office and Windows, I have tried to use
competing products like StarOffice and Linux, but I find that the
compatibility with Office or Windows is never good enough to truly
replace them. This is directly due to the intentional concealment of
standard communications information such as file formats and
programming API's.
Thank you for your time.
Chris
Chris Hawley, CISSP Information Security
600 March Road / PO Box 13600 Alcatel Canada Security
Officer (ISSO)
Kanata, Ontario CANADA K2K2E6 Tel
+1(613)784-3176 FAX +1(613)599-3696
MTC-00022311
From: Perri Nelson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perri Nelson
26338 191ST PL SE
COVINGTON, WA 98042
January 24, 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,
Perri Nelson
MTC-00022312
From: Derek Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27151]]
Date: 1/24/02 1:43pm
Subject: too much intelligence, not enough common sense.
I heard that remark today, and it applies perfectly to the
situation of the settlement of the DOJ's case against Microsoft, and
the whole circus surrounding it.
Microsoft has repeatedly violated consent decrees in the past.
Why should they be expected to behave this time, regardless of
whatever "enforcement" regime exists.
They have violated anti-trust laws, they continue to violate
anti-trust laws, and they will continue to violate anti-trust laws.
If you believe otherwise for a moment, please recuse yourself
from the case.
Derek Shaw
Business Information Systems Inc.
voice: 250-885-2021 fax: 250-386-4060
PGP Public Key ID: 0xD297D0EA
MTC-00022313
From: Douglas E. Hornig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to say that I think the proposed settlement to
resolve the United States" civil antitrust case against
Microsoft is terrible. I have been a software developer for over 30
years and I have seen Microsoft engage in anticompetitive practices
again and again. I am certain that the proposed settlement will do
little to prevent such practices in the future. In fact, I suspect
it will have the opposite effect since it will show them that they
can get away with such behavior.
I feel let down by my government.
Douglas Hornig
Hanover, New Hampshire
MTC-00022314
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:39pm
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 Austin
5309 Malvern Rd.
Roanoke, VA 24012
MTC-00022315
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am appalled at the suggested settlement of the MS antitrust
case. It pays but lip service to many of the more serious problems
in Microsoft's business practices that lead to their non-competitive
actions in the past.
The suggestions that Microsoft publish API's for Internet
Explorer, Microsoft Java, Windows Media Player, Windows messenger,
and Outlook Express, is a step in the right direction, but the DOJ
definition of API is too narrow, allowing MS to easily avoid any of
these requirements through semantic loopholes.
Microsoft's strangle hold on the PC market is as much tied to
the Window's-only software they make, as it is to the
-services- they make. To ensure the existence of fair
competition within the PC world, it should be required that
Microsoft publish sufficient API's to ensure that cross platform
versions of the software (either published third party, or by
Microsoft) offer at the least an equivalent user experience to the
following Microsoft applications and services when run on a PC
running a Microsoft OS: Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Java,
Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express, Exchange Server, Access.
Microsoft should be directly responsible for making available
applications and plugins that provide compatibility for Microsoft
Java, Media Player, Messenger, Exchange, and Access to cross
platform users.
Further, these solutions should provide equivalent
functionality, stability, and performance as their Windows
counterparts. This compatibility should extend to similar services
(i.e. not rendered invalid when Microsoft changes the names of its
products). Lastly, Microsoft should be forced to release the most
current MS Word, and MS Excel document types, such that competing
products can offer full compatibility with documents created using
the Microsoft Office Suite. This way, Microsoft can win their
customer base by the strength of their solutions and superiority of
their software alone, instead of strong-arm monopolistic tactics
they've used in the past.
Microsoft should be split into four separate entities to abate
unfair business practices they've used in the past:
Microsoft Windows: responsible for the core OS only. The sole
functionality of this body is to author software responsible for
controlling the PC hardware, and working with third party companies
to support peripherals such as network devices, printers, scanners,
cameras, mice, keyboards, monitors, etc. They should only work with
software and products that reliably translate user input into
hardware instruction, and publish no other software, such as word
processors, web browsers, etc.
Microsoft Software: responsible for continuing development of
Internet Explorer, Office, Messenger, Java, Exchange, Outlook, Media
Player, Microsoft's gaming division, solitaire, notepad, DOS
applications etc. Microsoft Hardware: Assumes development of
microsoft keyboards, mice, game pads and joysticks, other input
devices, and XBox development. Microsoft Network: Microsoft's
networking solutions, IIS and .NET initiatives, NT technologies, and
server strategies.
It should not require decades of litigation and the intervention
of the DOJ to ensure that a company conduct business in an honorable
fashion. Microsoft is an embarrassment to every honest and good
natured human being.
Sincerely,
Leonard Park
MTC-00022316
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:41pm
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,
Salvatore Pedi
102 North Road
Eastchester, NY 10709-3809
MTC-00022317
From: Steven M. Gallaway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust
The decision by the DOJ was fair. I do not believe that
Microsoft was wrong in the first place. Their practices were simply
good business. However, I did find the decision ironic in that it
will only increase Microsoft's market share? which I do not have a
problem with. Microsoft provides a superior product at comparable
prices.
Sincerely,
Steve Gallaway
MTC-00022318
From: Jared Sturgeon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Trial
To whom it may concern,
I am worried that the currently proposed plan does not address
the crimes that Microsoft has committed. It needs to be reworked and
made more punitive. Thank you,
Jared Sturgeon
MTC-00022319
From: Matt Kelsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27152]]
The proposed settlement is too soft on Microsoft.
M.K.
MTC-00022320
From: jeremy salmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
This brief email is in concern to the current Microsoft
Antitrust dealings and subsequent proposed settlement(s). As the
current settlement stands now, I do not believe it is sufficient to
correct the majority of Microsoft's more egregious business
practices. Several others more articulate than I have contacted you
with lists of problems that the plan contains, but I send only this
small missive. I request that the proposed settlement undergo
further consideration and a stronger, more inclusive plan be
formulated and presented.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Salmon
[email protected]
Ann Arbor, MI
MTC-00022321
From: Rober Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sir,
I have followed the Microsoft saga closely for many years. From
the out right theft of Double Space's code when the government could
have really changed things, thru the creation of a monopoly by
questionable means, thru the crushing of Netscape and business
suites while extending their monopoly using monopoly money. The
government has now proven to the world these facts and should break
Microsoft the company up into no less than 3 segments. In other
course of action will allow the company to continue to use monopoly
money to continue in its stated direction. That direction is the
domination of the set top console market. That market is currently
clearly marked with competition and innovation. Microsoft has
already announced they are willing to spend billions of dollars of
monopoly money to secure a new monopoly in the area which will then
result in ever more monopoly money. Any "deal" which
does not result in a break up I cannot support and will instead
support the American Antitrust Institute http://
www.antitrustinstitute.org/ efforts which could return the
government to Democratic control by exposing a scandal, Microsoft
DID contribute over a million dollars to the Republicain convention.
The hard work has already been done in court, now finish the job.
Robert Elliott
MTC-00022322
From: Dwight (038) Jan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
After reading about AOL filing suit against Microsoft on January
23rd, I wonder how many computers users are in agreement with me
about how "modern business" is conducted today. If you
are a competent competitor as AOL is supposed to be, why do you have
to conduct your business in a courtroom. I try to equate this to two
restaurants in competition in the same town, either you have the
product and service to offer or you don't. Either way you don't go
to court and whine about it, you settle your differences in a
businesslike manner.
I personally don't care for Netscape and prefer to use Internet
Explorer, that is my choice, but after this event, I am inclined to
delete anything to do with AOL and Netscape. Until they can offer a
better product and conduct themselves in an adult businesslike
manner, they are history.
Any questions call me at (530)533-5954 or e-mail me at
[email protected]
Janet Lantsberger
MTC-00022323
From: John Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am submitting the following
comments on the proposed Final Judgement against Microsoft.
Nothing in the text of the agreement forces Microsoft to change
its business practices and technical implementations. It does not
prevent Microsoft from bundling application software into its
operating system, and allows the company to benefit from its past
violations. Please do not let this pass as it now stands. -
John Manning
President
electronworks, inc.voice: +1.703.220.5578
http://www.electronworks.com/ fax: +1.703.995.0402
MTC-00022324
From: Daniel Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
this settlement is a bad idea
MTC-00022325
From: Valliappa Lakshmanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:46pm
Subject: Enforcement provisions
Sir,
I am a research scientist developing weather analysis techniques
at the University of Oklahoma. Ever since the Department of Justice
in the previous (Clinton) administration started to pursue Microsoft
for antitrust violations, it has become easier for us to purchase
computer hardware capable of running the Linux operating system from
mainstream companies such as Dell and Gateway. With the Department
of Justice in the current (Bush) administration essentially giving
Microsoft a free pass, I have no doubt that these companies will be
bullied into avoiding Linux workstations altogether or into
introducing "features" that preclude the use of non-
Microsoft operating systems.
Whenever we purchase a machine with Windows loaded on it, it
takes us upto 3 days to delete the Windows operating system, to
install Linux and test the installation, longer if everything does
not work correctly. This is time and manpower that we could use more
productively, in active research. Of course, we also end up paying
for an operating system that we never use. Since we are funded by
the National Science Foundation and other U.S. government agencies,
this wastage ultimately comes from the American taxpayer.
Please do not allow the marketplace for operating systems to
become stratified by accepting the weak enforcement provisions
proposed by the DoJ. Strict enforcement is essential to keep
innovation and competition in the computer market place.
Thank you.
V Lakshmanan
MTC-00022326
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:44pm
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,
Wm & Florence McEachern
1645 155th Ave
Centuria, WI 54824
MTC-00022327
From: Clifton Boots
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the witch hunt on Microsoft has gone on far too long.
The suit against Microsoft is being used ill-advised individuals
because they just can't stand for such a successful company to
prosper. Also for the states looking for a way to obtain large sums
of money to further their socialist endeavors.
Thank you. Clifton W. Boots
Anaheim, CA 92804-2504
MTC-00022328
From: Raymond L. Marky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
I want to express my support of the Microsoft settlement. First
I want to state that I am presently a very small owner Microsoft
stock-100 shares- but it is not a factor in my views on
this matter.
[[Page 27153]]
I think there should be an end to all of this litigation which
is only making a lot of money for lawyers for no earthly reason.
When I purchased my first computer it was loaded with dos and its
usefulness to me was marginal at best.
Microsoft's creation of Windows 3.1 and all of its future OS
thereafter is what created the computer that average people could
use and without that OS I doubt the average person would have ever
become everyday users of computers and the country would be poorer
for it. Indeed Netscape and other software companies owe their very
existence to Microsoft's Windows. Lets clear up something here. Ever
since Netscape hit the market I have had that program installed on
my computer and used it regularly until just recently. I simply
installed it on my Windows computer and used it without regard to
IE. Even after IE came integrated into Windows 98 and Me I still
installed Netscape because I was used to it and liked its interface.
Indeed I have Netscape installed on my present computer and use it
frequently although I am beginning to use IE because I think it is a
better product.
All Microsoft did was cause Netscape to stop charging an arm and
a leg that it was doing. I guess it would have benefited consumers
if Microsoft had charged $50.00 to $75.00 for IE rather than bundle
it with Windows and thereby make even more money!
I was opposed to the lawsuit against Microsoft in the first
place because I don't think it was in the public interest but the
interest of its competitors and it is time to stop this nonsense.
Raymond L. Marky
316 Garner Court
Tallahassee, FL 32301
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022329
From: Patty Mackne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support Microsoft in its negotiating settlements with
the government and states. Far, far too much time and money has been
spent on this to the detriment of the consumers.
MTC-00022330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:45pm
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 Kirk
1413 Red Fox Trail
O'Fallon, IL 62269-4210
MTC-00022331
From: Greg Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I am not sure what is appropriate for this
oppressive monopoly, but the proposed settlement does not address
several of my concerns.
Thank you,
Gregory Eugene Allen
12011 Scribe Dr.
Austin, TX 78759
Gregory E. Allen, MSEE Engineering Scientist
Applied Research Laboratories:
The University of Texas at Austin
MTC-00022332
From: Patrick Ash
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this letter to express my concern over the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft vs. The Department of Justice suit.
There is no doubt about the guilt of Microsoft, yet I find it very
strange that Microsoft is able to dictate the terms of its own
penalty.
It seems very ironic to me that when found guilty of being a
monopoly, Microsoft decides to make amends by providing $1 Billion
of its software to schools. This idea has several flaws. First, the
idea that Microsoft can value something it controls at $1 Billion,
is ludicrous. The valuation is certainly the full retail price,
while in actuality the only cost to Microsoft is that of producing
the media. Certainly this is a very small percentage of the retail
cost.
Next, allowing a monopolist to further propagate that monopoly
with government blessing seems to be the height of oxymoron. How
does one punish someone for monopolistic and anti-competitive
practices by allowing them to force others into the Microsoft herd.
I suggest the following as a settlement alternative.
1. If Microsoft wants to claim to be spending $1 Billion to
settle the lawsuit, require them to put $1 Billion into a trust that
the schools can draw from to choose their own hardware and software.
2. Require Microsoft to admit their guilt publicly.
3. Require Microsoft to refund the cost of the operating system
in accordance with the terms of the End User License Agreement
(EULA) to all of the users who were forced to pay for a Windows
Operating System on new computers they bought. The EULA states that
if the user does not agree with the terms of the agreement, then he/
she should return the product for refund, yet Microsoft refused to
allow users to do this.
As an IT professional, I have seen many users who do not realize
that there is any choice but Microsoft. I believe that they have
abused the power of their position in the market, and I agree that
there needs to be some severe punishment. I urge you to reject the
proposed settlement and impose something that will require Microsoft
to actually pay for their abuses. Thank you.
Patrick Ash
492 Oak Ave
malaga, NJ 08328
Patrick Ash
[email protected]
MTC-00022333
From: scott cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Our comment regarding this action is that it should be ended
immediately. This suit was politically engineered by business
competing against Microsoft that were falling behind due to their
own management. This new private lawsuit filed by AOL-TW underscores
our point. Oracle, Sun Microsystems, AOL-TW and various state
attorney(s) general stand to benefit from this action while
consumers, investors and our economy at large lose. Is this proper
use of anti-trust law?
Thank you,
Scott Cuddihy, Karen Di'Antonio, Syl Sowah, Jim Parris, Jeff
Parris and the other participants of the
tChief Industries Pension and Profit Sharing Plan
MTC-00022334
From: Vince P. Guzzardi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
Subject: settlement of case against microsoft
why is it that if you are successful and make a "better
mouse trap" that the government thinks you must be doing
something wrong.
how about going after PITNEYBOWES who has had a monoply on
postage machines for years.
vpg
MTC-00022335
From: Ulrich Gerlach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
Dear Judge of the District Court,
I rarely write letters to my Congressman, to say nothing about
the Department of Justice. However, with the Microsoft case my own
future (life, liberty, and persuit of happiness) is being threatened
by the outcome. This is why I am taking valuable time out to write
you this note.
First of all, being a user of Windows, I resent being
characterized as a helpless victim who cannot choose his own
software. Just as the government has no right to determine what food
goes or doesn't go into my stomach, it is none of the government's
business to decide what software goes into my computer.
[[Page 27154]]
Second, it is none of the government's business to suppress or
favor one religion over another, to "level the playing
field", even if one religion is more successful in
establishing its market share than any other. The same applies to
businesses. The government has no right to suppress or favor one
business over any other. Customers voting with their dollars, not
envious competitors using political pull or fundamentally flawed
laws, should determine which business gets the largest market share.
Third, I would like to see a free America where success is not
throttled but embraced, where anyone with enough intelligence can be
a self-made man like Bill Gates.
Fourth, last and most importantly, Microsoft created and
produced its products without any legal restrictions on its
competitors, without any government franchises, without any
government tariffs, subsidies, privileges or favors; in other words,
it achieved its enviable market status fair and square using only
what belongs to Microsoft and Bill Gates and no one else: their
life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
An attempt to infringe on these rights in the name of antitrust
is not only morally wrong, but is in direct violation of the
principles spelled out explicitly in the Declaration of
Independence. Tomorrow it will be some other persons, in particular
some other productive, creative, efficient, and competent member of
society who will be forced to abrogate his rights under the threat
of incessant persecution. Witness the "compromise"
between the FTC and Intel three years ago in which the government
trampled on Intel's right to dispose of its own property, and which,
under the threat of productivity draining persecution, triple
damages, seven-figure fines, and jail time, Intel's CEO by necessity
had to call a "win-win deal". What is particularly
alarming is that the government, which has been instituted to secure
each persons right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness, now,
in the name of antitrust, presides over the violation of these
rights.
I therefore urge you in the strongest possible terms to:
a) cease and desist your (support of the government's) immoral
campaign against Microsoft, to
b) use your resources to defend the Declaration of Independence
against those state Attorney Generals and envious competitors who
seek to violate it, and to
c) have the government reprimand these violators and have them
make a public apology for the unjust hardship, humiliations, and
distress which it has brought upon a business which represents the
best in
American culture.
Sincerely,
Ulrich H. Gerlach
Columbus, Ohio
MTC-00022336
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
16917 Ardisia Drive
Pflugerville, TX 78660-2212
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to you today to express my support of the Microsoft
settlement. Three years have now passed since the inception of this
case. During this time, federal resources have been squandered in
the litigation process. Given the current state of the economy, the
continuation of this case would be a ridiculous waste. Although I do
not believe the case should have ever been initiated, I am glad that
it may finally be resolved.
Microsoft too wishes to see resolution in this case as is
evident by its ability to make concessions regarding the issue.
Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft will provide for the
formation of a review board. The review board will be a technical
review board whose job it will be to oversee the terms of the
settlement, and make sure they are enacted. I believe that this
stipulation should ease the fears of people who would be wary of
compliance.
I hope that the Attorney General will enact this settlement with
haste.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Elinor Simmons
MTC-00022337
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:47pm
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 Archer
3 George St
Holyoke, MA 01040-2059
MTC-00022338
From: Michael House
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is bad. At best, it is a
slap on the wrist. At worst, it rewards them for harmful business
practices, for which they have shown no understanding that they have
done anything wrong. They need to learn the error of their ways,
having been proven to be a monopoly despite their best efforts to
sabotage the legal process, with lying on the witness stand, in
deposition, and with falsifying evidence in court. This proposed
settlement will make a mockery of any claims to support the ends of
justice. We deserve a real settlement, not this.
Sincerely,
Michael House
[email protected]
-
Be Seeing You...
-Michael House, [email protected]
Opinions expressed are my own unless otherwise specified.
"Perfection is achieved only by institutions on the point
of collapse."
-C. Northcote Parkinson
MTC-00022339
From: Patrick W.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
It is an honor to be able to add my voice to the reams of
letters you must be receiving regarding this incredibly long-lasting
and unbelievably frivolous lawsuit filed on behalf of Microsoft's
competitors. The merits of Microsoft's arguments are clear: this
highly successful company has innovated in the tradition of the best
American companies in our history. Microsoft has been attacked in
the courtroom only because its competitors were unable to
effectively battle in the marketplace.
If we believe in free market capitalism, then we should avoid
letting this settlement be knocked off-course by the January 22
lawsuit filed by America Online (AOL) and it's subsidiary, Netscape
Communications. This lawsuit is asking the Federal Government to
award a company that already received $10 Billion from AOL in it's
purchase, punitive damages against a technologically superior
browser- Microsoft's Internet Explorer, just because Microsoft
gave it away. There is nothing illegal about doing this!
If you want, you can open any search engine on the Internet and
type "Free Browsers", and you will find Netscape giving
its browser away, just like it did all those years ago. You would
have found free ones out there in the past, too. I was doing
telephone technical support for an Internet Service Provider, and it
was my JOB to find an easy, free solution for the customer to use a
web browser, if they didn't have one. I tell you from experience: I
tested every version of Netscape Navigator browser, and they ALL
were inferior to Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Everyone in this
industry KNOWS this, and that is why they are not reacting with more
disdain at Netscape's collapse of market share. Innovation, NOT
litigation, benefits the consumer, and they chose a better browser.
Please allow this settlement to go through, and give our US
economy a chance to take off again-and allow the greatest
American
[[Page 27155]]
success story company to revitalize our economy and revolutionize
world technology.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pat Walters
Sultan, Washington
MTC-00022340
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
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,
John Franzetti
16229 FM 973 N
Manor, TX 78653
MTC-00022341
From: Jim Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It allows
many of their anticompetitive practices to continue.
Thanks,
James Moss
Gresham, Oregon
Creative Director
Personal Image Concepts
MTC-00022342
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
Microsoft has very good products that it sells at a reasonable
price. If you read a history of the software industry, it has
succeeded because it sells better products at a lower price. They
are an important company in an important industry.
They also export a lot of products when this country has a huge
trade deficit. Please be careful in dealing with such a great
company. You might create more harm than good in your regulatory
efforts.
Sincerely,
Roger Van Cleve
MTC-00022343
From: Chuck Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Dear Sirs-
I saw that this was a forum to comment on the settlement between
the DOJ and Microsoft.
I have been a programer for over 35 years and a software
developer for the last 20 of those years.
I do not feel that the settlement really addresses my problems
with Microsofts Monopolistic Practices. What I would like to see is
an agreement that:
1. Forces Microsoft to publishes its interfaces in a timely
manner.
2. Prevents Microsoft from using any non-published interfaces in
its own applications.
3. Forces Microsoft to continue support for any published
interface for a long time without significant relative degradation
in performance. The above are not easy requirements, but they are
things that a properly operating market and regulatory environment
would enforce.
Thanks for reading this.
Sincerely-
Charles B. Peck
9 Nicolle Lane
Salmon, Idaho 83467
[email protected]
CC:Chuck Peck
MTC-00022344
From: Martin Ng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir,
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust suit. I strongly believe it is
in the right direction for all consumers and for the industry. On
balance, it is a fair and reasonable solution.
Being a business owner as well as a consumer of the technology,
I know first-hand the importance of bringing this to a closure. It's
a delicate balance between the free enterprise, competition and
governmental intervention. Settling this suit is for the best
interest of all. Some of Microsoft's competitors would want this to
drag on and on, if for no other reasons than to pull down Microsoft
in the process in order to gain some advantage through the courts
and not through the market place, as it should be. They are not
doing comsumers and businesses like us any favor. The spirit of the
Antitrust statue is to protect the consumers via competition. Our
country's economic strength is based on the the free enterprise
system, and not through some contrived, socialized (and thus non-
competitive) leveling of the market place through the court.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Regards,
Martin Ng
President
M D Enterprises
MTC-00022345
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:49pm
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,
Wilma OlerWhite
3618 East 59th Street
Kansas City, MO 64130
MTC-00022346
From: Peter Glassey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Proposed Settlement
As a citizen, voter, and worker in the software industry I
wanted to share my opinion of the settlement between the U.S.
Federal Government and States and the Microsoft corporation: I AM
STRONGLY AGAINST IT! This deal does little to address the monopoly
powers of Microsoft, and their illegal use of those powers to
control the technology industry. This deal does nothing to
compensate the victims of Microsoft's monopolistic business
practices.
The future of the technology industry appears very bleak if
Microsoft is allowed to maintain and strengthen its monopolies. No
U.S. company should be allowed to exist above the laws of this
country. Please don't accept this settlement which essentially is a
surrender by the government and the rule of law to the rule of power
(both financial and political) of Microsoft.
Thank you,
Peter Glassey
Mountain View, California
CC:Peter Glassey
MTC-00022347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:50pm
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
[[Page 27156]]
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,
John Ricks
771 Beechwood
Vallejo, CA 94591
MTC-00022348
From: Tom Tetrault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may Concern,
This is to express my deep concern and great reservation with
the "Deal" that has been put forward as remedy for the
proven Monopolist company, Microsoft Inc. After reading the
settlement document, twice, I still fail to see how it is in the
best interest of this great country to proceed as recommended. It in
no way curtails the monopolistic practices of this predatory
company. Do not misunderstand, I am a capitalist! But a rabid animal
must be put down when discovered as it endangers the environment.
The recommended settlement does not even come close to this!
Thank you
Thomas Tetrault
MTC-00022349
From: Charlie Reiman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read Scott Rosenberg's acticle in Salon, and I agree with
him. Without an open API to allow for free competition in the OS
area, we will never have any competition. While it is true this will
cost MS intellectual property, it still seems fair as they have
violated previous court efforts to tame their behavior. Taking their
money won't even make MS bat an eye. Taking their IP will get their
attention and allow for real competition.
Charlie Reiman
1404 Carmelita Ave.
Burlingame CA 94010
MTC-00022350
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:51pm
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,
Richard Ward
16495 Hunt Rd.
Hillman, MI 49746
MTC-00022351
From: Reed Harms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, I'm expressing my opinion to please
accept the proposed Microsoft settlement.
I have never been hurt by Microsoft...quite the opposite of the
lawsuit brought on by the government. My 401k retirement fund and
mutual funds have really been hit hard because of this lawsuit. It's
time to resolve this and move on! The economy will only get worse if
the proposed settlement isn't accepted. I never asked the government
to bring this case against Microsoft or spend my hard earned tax
dollars on what I think was a political issue.
Thank you,
Reed Harms
MTC-00022352
From: k claffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement folks:
the proposed settlement is really really a bad idea. i will send
further comments in with dan kegel-
k
MTC-00022353
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:51pm
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,
Sue Parry
3202 SE 156th Ave.
Vancouver, WA 98683-3711
MTC-00022354
From: Raphael S. Reggie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I strongly disagree with the settlement. It is clear they have a
monopoly and this settlement does not do enough to change that.
Microsoft has in the past used unfair and anti-competitive tactics
to establish it's monopoly and shows no sign of changing it's ways.
Please reject this settlement and do what is right by American
consumers. Competition is good, Microsoft stifles competition, that
must change if the technology industry in the U.S. will continue to
prosper.
MTC-00022355
From: Robert Ruffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
320 Southeast 41st Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34471
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a longtime supporter of Microsoft, I urge you to bring about
an end to this case and go forward with the settlement that was
proposed in November. Even though it causes Microsoft to give over a
lot of its intellectual rights and profits, I feel that if this is
what is necessary in order to bring about a resolution to this case,
then so be it.
They are willing to give their competitors access to much of
their software in order to increase these products"
competitiveness with Microsoft products. They cannot even retaliate
with these products for when they begin to steal Microsoft's share
of the market. This is something that would not be required of any
other company except Microsoft.
I hope that this settlement will be finalized as soon as
possible in order to bring about an end to this long case. I would
like to finish by thanking you for opening this period of comment,
so that my opinion could be heard. I believe Microsoft has been good
for me and certainly good for our great nation!
Sincerely,
Robert Ruffin
CC:Robert Ruffin
MTC-00022356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54pm
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
[[Page 27157]]
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,
John & Dorothy Mortensen
1603 W. Lancaster Ave.
Leesburg, FL 34748-6938
MTC-00022357
From: Rakesh Bharania
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings-
I am writing to urge a rejection of the proposed final judgement
on the microsoft issue.
As a technical professional, I am concerned that Microsoft's
illegal practices will not be sufficiently deterred or remedied
through the PFJ. Microsoft has done great harm to our economy and to
the technical industry in general, and the punishment should fit the
crime.
Please see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Thanks.
Rakesh Bharania
408.526.5981
"The Cosmic Armadillo"
[email protected]
Security Architect [email protected]
ciscoSystems INFOSEC
PGP Key ID: 0xC5D50B11
MTC-00022358
From: Randall Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please just end the whole thing against Microsoft. This case is
not to the benefit of anyone other than the attorneys representing
Microsoft's competitors. If Microsoft's competitors cannot compete,
then so be it, they can go the route of others that haven't been
able to compete. Too much has been spent on this already.
Sincerely,
Randall and Lynn Graham,
Riverside, Calif.
MTC-00022359
From: Michael Roman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed final settlement is a bad idea
Michael Roman
[email protected]
W: 255-4882
H: 272-8617
MTC-00022360
From: Dan Bidwa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. The current proposed settlement neither punishes
the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor prevents them
from similar actions in the future. It is only a settlement in the
sense that it allows the DoJ to wash their hands of the issue. This
is not what it should be, nor is it what we should accept.
Sincerely,
Dan Bidwa
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
MTC-00022361
From: J Herzfeld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to just go on record as opposing the proposed
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft in the antitrust case. I
think the proposed settlement will do almost nothing to reign in
microsoft's monopolistic practices. Look at windows XP. Do you see
anything there that looks like an attempt to be less predatory. The
bundling in XP is mind boggling and entering all sorts of new areas.
When a new version of the OS comes out, in a normal market, you
would expect that the old version would still be available at a
reduced cost. This never happens with Microsoft. Either the old
version is no longer available (which is happeneing now) OR the
older version can still be bought, but only at the same price as the
new version. (which has happened in the past) Personally, I think a
break up should be brought on the table again. If this causes the
litigation to drag on a bit more, so be it. The proposed settlement
will waste what has been achieved so far.
John Herzfeld
36 Madison St
Belmont MA 02478
MTC-00022362
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:53pm
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,
Charles Becker
504 Driewood Ct.
Raleigh, NC 27609
MTC-00022363
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Antritrust Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to voice my concerns over the proposed Microsoft
antitrust settlement and urge the court to reject the settlement.
The court should be concerned that nine states" attourneys
general are opposed to the proposed settlement.
The proposed settlement does not appear to make any notable
punishment for past wrongdoing, and instead seems focused solely on
correcting future behavior (the details of which seem inadequate).
Most disturbingly, my reading of the proposed settlment seems to
indicate that Microsoft is given too many loopholes with which to
comitt anticompetitive behavior. Intellectual property and security
concerns are too easily named as reasons for witholding protocol,
API, and file format specifications. In particular, it is a
widespread maximin the security industry that a well designed
security system relies only on the secrecy of encryption keys (or
passwords) and not on the secrecy of the algorithms or processes
involved. Microsoft has shown itself to be all too eager to exploit
loopholes, and it appears that Microsoft is prepared to do so under
the guise of restructing the development process to make security
the number one priority. I would also like to point out that in the
past year, Microsoft has been caught rigging polls (see
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html) and
taking other actions to create false "grass roots"
support for Microsoft (sometimes referred to as
"Astroturfing"). It is highly possible that Microsoft is
taking similar measures with the proposed settlement and public
commentary.
Sincerely,
Karl A. Magdsick
14 Hamlin St. Apt. #3
Cambridge, MA 02141
[email protected]
MTC-00022364
From: Valerie Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DEPT. OF JUSTICE:
As one consumer who loves the products, innovation and
determination of Microsoft to improve the technological world we
live in, I sincerely hope that the government's decisions will favor
Microsoft. It is the only rational action you can take.
AOL's vengeance [on behalf of Netscape] is sad and unfounded,
and one based on greed and envy.
As a Microsoft stockholder, my testimony against AOL is fraught
with even greater dissatisfaction. It is unlikely I would ever
become an AOL user now, in light of this aggression on their part.
Our family has sold off any stock holdings we had affiliated with
AOL/Netscape et al, as a personal stand against what they now stand
for.
Valerie Elliott
Seattle, Washington
MTC-00022365
From: Tim Lenseigne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just some thoughts from a consumer.
[[Page 27158]]
As an avid computer user for the last 12 years I have used
Microsoft's" operating system out of my own personal choice.
When I first starting using the computer, first in college, and then
in the workplace, it was clear that you needed an operating system
that would allow you to utilize the programs out there.
At the time there were an equal number of pc programs and
Macintosh programs on the shelf. It is clear that the consumers
chose pc as the platform to work from. And Windows was there to fill
the niche. Just like consumers chose VHS over Beta videocassettes
(and now DVD's). Consumers chose the pc platform and
Microsoft's" operating system over Macintosh.
For many years I chosen the programs to run on my computer based
on my personal preference. I chose and still use Quicken, although
MS Money is probably now just as good.
I chose Lotus 123 as my spreadsheet program until MS Excel
became a better program.
I chose WordPerfect until MS Word became a better program.
I chose Eudora as my email program until MS Outlook became a
better choice.
And I used Netscape until IE Explorer became a better program.
I never paid for either Netscape or Explorer so the choice
wasn't a financial one. Microsoft just came out with a better
product in the case of the browser war. End of story.
I realize that anyone can sue anyone these days but rather than
waste so much time and money on going after a company that is
bringing the consumer what they want let's work on getting the
economy back on track and eliminating the terrorist threats in the
world.
In the end the consumer will determine how Microsoft fares out
based on the products that they bring to market. Maybe if AOL
(netscape) concentrated on what the consumer wanted in the first
place they wouldn't be whining so much now.
Tim Lenseigne
Residential Marketing Consultant
Windermere Bellevue Commons
Office Phone 425-450-2619
Fax Number 425-450-2600
Access Phone 206-680-4717
Website http://www.tim.mywindermere.com
MTC-00022366
From: Rick Brownback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
Subject: microsoft partitioning
I am a computer software professional and have been so for
thirty years.
I will be brief.
A programmer creating an application for Windows must rely on a
description (documentation) of the Windows Interface.
If a Microsoft application programmer has a problem with his
program (for example WORD) interfacing with Windows, he could walk
across campus and discuss his problem with an operating system
programmer.
I realize that this is only a possibility.
I feel it would help the industry's competitiveness if Microsoft
application programmers were at the same disadvantage as others. I
would like to see Microsoft partitioned into at least three
entities: operating systems (windows/xp), applications (word), and
hardware (xbox) thank you for your time
MTC-00022367
From: David Swigger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (not a form letter)
I have watched with interest the feeding frenzy of politicians
over the Enron collapse.
Interest because of the feigned caring about employees and stock
holders profits being "unfairly" ripped from them.
I take great offense at the DOJ's attack on Microsoft. I am not
an employee or a stockholder, but I have family that own stock.
The DOJ has tried to make the case the MS is hurting consumers
in some manner. I have yet to see one single person (and I work in
the technical field) tell me they were harmed in any way from MS.
The DOJ proclaims that MS uses "unfair business
practices". Unfair is pure subjectivity on the DOJ's part, the
software business is unlike any typical business and is more akin to
the record industry. The DOJ might as well go after certain record
companies for having the most popular artists signed onboard. In
software you either innovate or you fall behind and loose.
Microsoft has provided the world with standards that were sorely
needed, technology that they give away for free, and an incredible
amount of tools to make the industry a better place.
For the DOJ to pursue harmful actions against MS is an affront
to the core principles of capitalism and a complete abandonment of
acknowledgement for achievement.
The DOJ has made its case which in every way affirmative action
for software companies. AOL, Netscape,Sun, are using the arguments
commonly used in affirmative action to give their cause equivalence.
If MS was to be broken up today-there would be a large supply
of companies ready to fill their shoes, is this the endless cycle of
the DOJ's intrusion on the software industry we can look forward to?
Is it in the DOJ's interest to create a plain of success that
must not be exceeded? That is the perception that I-and many
have received from the attack on Microsoft.
The ONLY people that have benefited from the DOJ's attack on
Microsoft have been trial lawyers. The same trial-lawyers which
always benefit at someone else's expense. This settlement, this
case, this whole ordeal has done NOTHING to help a single US citizen
in any shape or form. As a matter of fact, the DOJs insistence on
attacking Microsoft created a fall in the Stock Market, and hurt
MANY Americans more than can be calculated.
Sun, Netscape, and the Linux crowd have just as much right to
innovate and prosper as I do. I take great offense at the prospect
that the industry that is driving our nations superiority is being
turned into a welfare system for lagging developers.
I feel the lawsuit in the first place was unjustified, and a
clear (let me stress very clear) attempt (appears successful) at
bilking money out of a company who had not made significant
political contributions (evidently to the right people).
I do not view Microsoft as a lottery as the DOJ and the
companies and states involved in the lawsuit seem to. I view
Microsoft as a company that I as an American take great pride in. I
view Bill Gates as a successful man that emanates the American
dream. I currently view the DOJ/companies involved/and the trial
lawyers who stand to gain from this-leeches.
David Swigger
(281) 587-0378
MTC-00022368
From: george tsiros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don't give microsoft the right to choose their sentence.
MTC-00022369
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to protest the proposed final judgment in the
Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement as it exists would be
nearly worthless at preventing Microsoft from abusing its monopoly
in computer operating systems. This is a company that has been found
guilty in federal court (a finding upheld by an appellate court as
well) of violating American laws repeatedly, yet the proposed
settlement contains no real punitive measures. It merely codifies
the status quo and enables Microsoft to continue to bully
competitors and maintain its monopoly through illegal and immoral
means.
I urge the Department of Justice to reconsider this matter very
seriously. The acceptance of this settlement will surely have a
massive negative effect on the entire technology industry. The only
beneficiaries of this travesty will be Microsoft, which doesn't seem
like "justice" to me.
Jennifer Woertz
8505 Shoal Creek
#106
Austin, TX 78757
MTC-00022370
From: Sergius Vonschischkoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this is a very bad idea.
Sergius VonSchischkoff
MTC-00022371
From: Vic and Gigi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern;
I am sending this short message to demonstrate my support for
Microsoft!! I am convinced that AOL, is much more comfortable
competing with Microsoft in a court environment, than they are on
the open market.
Sincerely,
[[Page 27159]]
Victor Scaturo
MTC-00022372
From: Elly L.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
It seems like the proposed settlement for Microsoft antitrust
trial is flawed. Because of many different legal loopholes in it,
Microsoft will be able to find ways to easily exploit their
customers and OEMs to their advantage.
A great analysis of flaws in the proposed settlement could be
found here:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html . Below are my main
complains about the settlement:
1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols. The complete
documentation for these must be made public and be updated in a
timely manner. Closed APIs and file formats are a major barrier to
entry, since virually no company can afford to convert its existing
documents into a new format. Currently anyone using Microsoft
products is effectively "locked in" to those products
because they cannot be easily converted to another format. While
some attempts had been made toproduce programs and/or libraries that
can read and write files in Microsoft's formats, they are only
partially compatible and usually fail on complex documents. The main
reasons for this are undocumented changes in Microsoft APIs and lack
of complete documentation. Anything that can be done to reduce this
barrier can only help to create more opportunity in the market.
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. Allowing
Microsoft to continue to take advantage of that situation by
prohibiting those companies from offering alternatives effectively
means allowing Microsoft to continue to hold the industry hostage.
3) Microsoft's attempts to extend their monopoly in new markets
* Microsoft attempted (often successfully) to extend their monopoly
in several new markets already, using the same monopolistic tactics.
Most prominent examples are: * 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), and also to sabotage
development Sun Microsystems" Java language on Windows
platform in favor of their own ".NET" system.
* Audio/Video market, where Microsoft used their OS monopoly to
push products likeWindows Media Player and gain unfair advantage
over competitors such as Real Player and QuickTime
* The failed attempt to turn an educational lawsuit into a way
to inject their software into yet another market
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.
Sincerely,
Anton Vysotskiy
Software Developer/Network Engineer
7108 13 Ave #2F
Brooklyn, NY 11228
MTC-00022373
From: Robin Patchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
Subject: Anti-trust suit
Dear Sir or Madam:
Stop wasting my money, and the money of every other taxpayer, by
harassing an excellent company that has changed the way America and
the world use their computers. They're not perfect. Who among us is?
This suit has had drastic, negative effects on our economy, and
it's time to stop.
There are terrorists to fight. There are real criminals. Use
your resources to get them, and leave Microsoft alone.
Respectfully,
Robin Patchen
Edward Patchen
2709 NW 159th St.
Edmond, OK 73013
MTC-00022374
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54pm
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,
ken pierce
157 dillon dr
vallejo, CA 94589
MTC-00022375
From: Sylvia Schulz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe the DOJ is interested in protecting consumer's
and fair competitive practices.
Rather, the ongoing, relentless actions of the DOJ againt
Microsoft certainly appears to be in response to the greed of big
business-specifically Microsoft's competitors who are seeking
government intervention to sqwelch their competition.
Also, the actions of Microsoft's competitors and the DOJ
directly affects the stock market and the national economy. Millions
of Americans believe in Microsoft and it's products and have
invested in the company. The future economic strength of the country
is most certainly affected by stock market, and the future of
millions of Americans who have invested in Microsoft for today and
for their future retirement is in great jeapordy.
The actions of the DOJ in response to Microsoft's competitors
has certainly created doubts in the minds of millions of Americans.
Whose interests is the DOJ really serving?
MTC-00022376
From: Pete Shinners
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement for the Microsoft case is a
bad idea. It does not do enough to promote competition and smaller
companies in the market. It also doesn't address the unfair
treatment of open source projects competing with Microsoft.
Pete Shinners
MTC-00022378
From: Bill Gish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems to me the lawyers who do not seem to understand and
judges who don't understand can't settle a dispute without see how
much the law profession can earn from all the delays. The main
objective is not to help the consumer but the big boys who have
donated to government officials. The Microsoft programs have been
good for me and AOL which I had at one time was not as effective for
my use.
Since the economy is so great and is booming why not just keep
the case in the courts for a few more years and let the little guys
pay for it.
William D. Gish
MTC-00022379
From: Kelly Tetterton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has been found
to be a monopoly, and any remedy must address that current
power-as well as Microsoft's history in trying to evade
anything that would interfere with its power.
Kelly Tetterton
Technical Lead, Macromedia Certified ColdFusion Developer
duoDesign, eBusiness Architects
Internet design, technology and online marketing
847-491-3000 main: [email protected]
[[Page 27160]]
847-491-3100 fax: www.duoDesign.com
847-491-7125 direct: www.Nexiv.com
MTC-00022380
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
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,
Dr & Mrs S Kenneth Nelson
9102 Prairieview Lane N
Champlin, MN 55316-2690
MTC-00022381
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
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,
M W Richardson
305 Concord Ct.
Huron, OH 44839-1418
MTC-00022383
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58pm
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,
David Witwer
3255 Brunswick Dr
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
MTC-00022384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:59pm
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,
Ruth Davis
710 Southway
Kerrville, TX 78028
MTC-00022385
From: Meg Metzger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03pm
Subject: FW: Micorsoft letter
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I'm writing to urge you to accept the terms of the settlement
recently reached between Microsoft and the United States Justice
Department. The settlement will result in a much more competitive
environment beneficial for all parties involved.
Microsoft has, for example, agreed to grant broad new rights to
computer manufacturers and software developers to configure Windows
to promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with
Microsoft programs included within Windows. This means computer
manufacturers can replace Internet Explorer with Netscape Navigator;
Microsoft Media Player with RealPlayer; and Windows Messenger with
AOL Instant Messenger. Microsoft has further agreed to not retaliate
against computer makers and software developers who choose to take
this route, nor will Microsoft retaliate against computer makers who
ship competing operating systems.
Overseeing the terms of the settlement will be a Technical
Committee comprised of three persons who are software engineering
experts. This Technical Committee will assist in any dispute
resolution, should a complaint be filed. It is time the case get
behind us.
Based on these facts, I respectfully request you to accept the
terms of the settlement.
Sincerely,
Margaret A.Metzger
216 Hawthorn Rd
Bellingham, WA 98225
MTC-00022386
From: David Beahm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ending unlawful conduct is best done by correcting the violator,
not by bending the law to appease him. The sell-out of the American
public by the Department of Justice is shameful, and I oppose it.
The idea that this agreement will somehow curb Microsoft's
hideous behavior is undermined by Microsoft's own comments and
actions. Within days of announcing they would "open up the
desktop" and allow systems integrators to install non-
Microsoft software and icons on new PCs, Microsoft immediately back-
tracked when vendors proposed installing applications which compete
directly with Microsoft. Witness also Microsoft's suit to end their
previous agreement with the DOJ. To quote a Microsoft employee,
"There's no reason you shouldn't smile the whole time you're
pulling the trigger." I cannot say whether splitting Microsoft
up would be a wise remedy, but I appreciate Judge Penfield-Jackson's
belief that anything less severe would be a mere panacea.
The holes in this proposal are numerous and preposterous. Rather
than try to restate what others have said better, I refer you to the
document at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html#public_interest.
Thank you for your time.
DCB
Williamsport, PA
MTC-00022387
From: Vincent Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may Concern:
I find that this settlement addresses the concerns brought on by
the government. It will clearly give competitors and Microsoft a
clear understanding of the rules of the marketplace. And unlike the
settlements desired by the non-signing attorney generals
[[Page 27161]]
and competitors AOL Time Warner (who by the way seems much bigger
down even though they claim Microsoft has prevented them from going
about their business) allows both Microsoft and its competitors to
compete. And rather then giving out handicaps to competitors, this
settlement will show that the better product will become the
dominant product.
I thank you for your time,
Vincent Rogers
1036 S Mariana St #3
Tempe AZ 85281-4171
MTC-00022388
From: Howd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
It is time to stop fining Microsoft for doing business in
America. The days" of government corporate welfare must have
passed. Now the government is asking for welfare from any business
that is sucessful.
Microsoft has done nothing to me or other private citizens. And
if you claim they have where's my share of the settlement? This is
government greed.
Howard Rice
MTC-00022389
From: JHCragoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
BlankJohn H. Cragoe
6310 N.E. 138th Place
Kirkland, WA 98034-4905
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Three years of litigation against Microsoft in the antitrust
suit was flawed and unjustified. In their most recent financial
disclosures, the cost of defense is put at nearly two-thirds of a
billion dollars. Resources that could have been used for further
technological advances, for additional employment opportunities, for
lower final prices to consumers, or for local philanthropic purposes
have been wasted.
The original aim was to protect consumer rights, but as the
litigation continued it has became very apparent to me and to many
other people that this case reflects the intense lobbying efforts on
the part of Microsoft competitors and lack of concern for the public
best interest on the part of politicians and lawmakers. As a user of
computer technology for over twenty years, I have chosen Microsoft
products because the combination of features, ease of use,
continuous upgrades in capability, and low cost were unmatched by
any other provider.
The terms of the settlement are entirely too harsh and unfair.
Microsoft should not be forced to give away information about its
internal interfaces and protocols. They have worked long and hard to
develop these secrets and it should be their right to keep them
within their company's walls. It is also unjust to bar Microsoft
from entering into any third party agreements for exclusive
distribution rights. If this will be implemented, than Pepsi and
Coca Cola should not be able to sign agreements of the same kind
with McDonalds and Wendy's.
While I find the settlement ineffective and biased towards
giving competition an edge they could never attain the old fashioned
way through hard work and innovation, I think it must be
implemented. Further lawsuits will only be more detrimental to our
economy. Please take a strong stance on this with the nine remaining
states that still oppose settlement. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
JHCragoe
John H Cragoe
[email protected]
Tel: 425-814-8326
Fax: 425-821-3544
MTC-00022390
From: Tucker Cheadle
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Microsoft has been the only company to create a desktop
program...despite the efforts of others such as Linux, Sun and
Oracle. Sun and Oracle have funded the litigation and it is for
their purposes to reduce the possibility that Microsoft will operate
in servers (this effects Sun) or operate in database (this effects
Oracle).
The case should be settled along the lines proposed of having
Microsoft pay the schools and/or contribute software and computers.
The uncertainty of this case on the economy is too great to
continue with the litigation.
MTC-00022391
From: Retha Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Time Warner knew that Netscape had real problems when the bought
it. Why are they trying to pull down the only web browser that does
what it is to do more often than not. The market place has and
always will be the one who determines who is going to make it and
who is not. It has spoken why cant people just leave this company
alone. Time Warner really has nothing legitimate to complain about
nor even think of going to court.
sincerely
Retha Bennett
MTC-00022392
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:59pm
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,
Elmer Cole
563 Spring Creek Dr/
Derby, KS 67037-1335
MTC-00022393
From: RR-
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to encourage the Department of Justice and the
remaining states to settle this litigation with Microsoft. It has
had a detrimental affect on the whole industry.
Let us go forward with this and give this company and all tech
companies the ability to innovate, and to solve their own
differences without the government being involved.
Sincerely,
Ray Reid
Salem, Oregon
MTC-00022394
From: Rajiv Aaron Manglani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i am a us citizen and i think the proposed microsoft/doj
settlement is a bad idea. please listen to steve jobs.
thanks
rajiv aaron manglani / [email protected]
MTC-00022395
From: Peter Wittenberg K2LRC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft agreement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am happy to hear that Microsoft and the government have
reached an agreement. I think Microsoft has conducted itself
appropriately as a corporate citizen throughout this entire ordeal,
and think what they have agreed to do is fair for all.
If I understand it correctly, Microsoft has agreed to establish
a "Technical Committee" that will monitor Microsoft's
compliance with the settlement and assist with dispute resolution,
as well as agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and
procedures that were actually at issue in the suit, for the sake of
wrapping up the suit, and has granted computer makers broad new
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software
programs that compete with programs included within Windows.
Mr. Ashcroft, this settlement shows the kind of company
Microsoft has always been
[[Page 27162]]
and that is a company that cares not only about sales, but also
about the consumer's needs and abilities to have access to its
innovative product. I support this settlement, and hope it will be
approved at the end of this comment period.
Sincerely,
Peter Wittenberg
Ursula Wittenberg
MTC-00022396
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I am a software developer and technology business owner. The
combination of the bad economy and endless litigation between the
government, Microsoft, AOL, and whoever else, is making things
extremeley difficult to be successful. We need to make technology
decisions for our customers. Its hard enough to make these decisions
based on the products alone but when you throw litigation into the
mix its nearly impossible.
I want to make my voice heard as a little guy. The government is
supposed to represent the people and in my opinion allowing all
these lawsuits to interfere with a free market economy is hurting
the little people. Big corporations have plenty of money to throw
around while the small business struggles daily to meet expenses.
My experience in the high tech field has shown that all
companies resort to aggressive tactics in the marketplace. Microsoft
has been singled out rightly or wrongly. They may deserve some
penalties but they do not represent evil and AOL or the government
represent good. To allow these lawsuits to continue hurts not only
Microsoft but the millions of people who have benefited and continue
to rely on their technology moving forward.
In another voice for the little guy I encourage any settlement
to benefit those who are in the most need in this country. The
donation to poor schools would have been a step in the right
direction. Those with less have the most right to benefit in this
case. Outside of corruption found at Enron, let the mega-
corporations fight it out in the marketplace. Let the consumers be
the judge with their spending decisions.
Please end the chaos and let us get back to work serving the
people of this country.
Regards,
Thomas Lucking
4264 Howe Street
Oakland, CA 94611
(510) 459-4647
(503) 961-1828 fax
MTC-00022397
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03pm
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,
Lynne Isom
P.O. Box 1239
Kilauea, HI 96754
MTC-00022398
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:00pm
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 Ellis
1240 Westmont Dr.
Jacksonville, OR 97530
MTC-00022399
From: Peter Allan Laurens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement should be a punishment for the
monopolistic ways that Microsoft have been proven to have employed
in a court of law. When interpreting the term
"punishment" I mean that the outcome for Microsoft
should be a negative one in every sense-it should be shown
that monopolistic/anti-trust ways should be detrimental in the end
for those companies using them.
The most recent suggestion that Microsoft donate $1bn of
software/computers to schools is in no way punishment-it is
not detrimental to the company. Instead it would allow Microsoft to
get its foot in the door of a market that has traditionally
preferred Microsofts only real competitor-Apple. To upset the
market in this way with a $1bn influx in Microsofts favour is a
benefit to the company and not in any way detrimental. It would be
outrageous should this proposal go ahead-those companies that
remain in the industry such as Apple have been put through a hard
enough time as it is with Microsoft's ways in the first place, and
for them to lose out on this settlement would be insanity.
Peter Allan Laurens
MTC-00022400
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04pm
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,
Rolf Schey
1323 21st St. NW
Rochester, MN 55901
MTC-00022402
From: Gregory Swanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am a developer, I have an interest in the outcome of this case
because it could affect my career and ability to earn a living. When
I was a student, I could not afford a computer from Apple and Unix
machines were more expensive than Apple machines. I bought an IBM
compatible pc that ran DOS. Besides running on cheap hardware,
Microsoft makes lots of software available for little or no cost
(For example check out their Platform SDK (software development kit)
at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/
sdkintro/us age-1817.asp?frame=true ). The reason Microsoft is
big is because they provide the best value and people trust that
they will be in business tomorrow.
I have been involved in seven projects writing applications for
Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser and only one project that
supports browsers in addition to Microsoft's. The decision to not
support other browsers was always made by the company paying for the
development. The reason was always the same: it would cost too much
and it would take too long to implement the functionality the
company wanted.
So before we kill Microsoft, let's find a replacement that
everyone can afford.
[[Page 27163]]
Thanks,
Gregory Swanson
San Jose, CA
MTC-00022403
From: William Snow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
Subject: Your settlement of the microsoft antitrust suit Is frankly
ludicrous.
A) allowing microsoft to pay the fine by using SOFTWARE just
proliferates the problem.
B)I believe there was insufficient disclosure of the discussions
held between the DOJ and Microsoft about the settlement. The public
has a right to know how you sold them out.
Thanks,
William Snow
48 Campbell Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
MTC-00022404
From: Brad Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:06pm
Subject: Potential MS v DOJ settlement
Your Honor,
I realize you have to read all of these emails so I'll be brief.
Obviously the following comments could benefit from a more expanded
examination but the basics are communicated well enough.
I believe the best solution is to split Microsoft into two
separate entities. One which would be responsible for the Operating
System and another which would be responsible for Applications and
Development Tools. These two entities should have to operate under
the following constraints:
1. The OS Entity should have to make available to any vendor the
same API calls and documentation (and any other interaction) that it
makes available to the Applications Entity. Apple does this, Linux
does this, Unix Vendors do this-there's no reason Microsoft
can't.
2. The Application Entity should be required to make available
all OS calls it makes (and/or requires) to outside vendors/
competitors. This would allow other OS vendors to provide the
necessary entry points in their OS so the applications that run on
Windows would be able to run on their systems with minimal or no
changes. Eventually the reverse would be true as well. This would
provide a benefit to the public (and smaller companies) in that
there would be more programs available on more platforms at a
cheaper cost.
Thank you for your time,
Brad R. Hale
MTC-00022405
From: Matt Gerber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an everyday user of Microsoft's products, I urge the Justice
Department to reconsider penalizing Microsoft for its success in the
marketplace.
Microsoft deserves accolades rather than punishment for creating
standards for developers to write reams of software to ensuring ease
of use by bundling products. It has made my life easier and more
productive. It has earned the right to be a market leader, even to
demand onerous terms in its licensing agreements. Yet neither I nor
anyone else has been forced to accept Microsoft's products and
services. Every transaction I or anyone has ever conducted with
Microsoft has been on a voluntary basis.
Our country, created to protect the individual rights to life,
liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property, should ensure that
Microsoft keeps what is has earned, not strangle it for its success.
If Microsoft is not left free to produce and grow, then all
companies would think twice about becoming too successful, about
achieving too high a market share, about striving for excellence.
The abridged rights of one company affect the rights of all.
Microsoft has been a shining beacon of what makes America great;
please do not punish that greatness.
Matthew Gerber
Austin, TX
MTC-00022406
From: William R Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have some grave concerns about the proposed settlement between
the DOJ and Microsoft. The terms of the settlement are far too easy
for Microsoft to get around. For more information about these
concerns see the web page:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Thank you for your consideration.
William R. Ward, US Citizen
Mountain View, CA
William R Ward
[email protected]
http://www.wards.net/bill/ If you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the precipitate.
MTC-00022407
From: Jimmy Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgment Remedy
Dear Judge,
According to my understanding of the case the proposed remedy by
Microsoft is to propagate the Windows OS into schools that currently
do not have computers. While on the surface this might seem like a
beneficial compromise I would like to point out that this is in fact
the DOJ providing Microsoft with a government sponsored captive
distribution channel. This remedy is so far from a real remedy that
it is laughable.
Why is the DOJ offering Microsoft a remedy that is
overpoweringly beneficial to Microsoft?
Jimmy Jones
MTC-00022408
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:05pm
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,
Denise Morningstar
1019 S Division St
Whitehall, MI 49461-1701
MTC-00022409
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:09pm
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,
Harry Benson
13930 Barryknoll Ln
Houston, TX 77079-3311
MTC-00022410
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am unhappy with the proposed settlement. I would expect a
settlement to meet the following criteria:
- provide redress to the companies affected by the past and
ongoing monopolistic practices of the Microsoft corporation
- restructure the Microsoft corporation to separate operating
system and application development
- require the new companies to document their software
interfaces and adhere to recognized international and national
standards
- require Microsoft to provide financial compensation to
companies affected by its
[[Page 27164]]
monopolistic practices-note that this does mean providing
Microsoft products to schools, which simply extends its monopoly
Respectfully,
Kathleen Wilhelm
MTC-00022411
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
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 Attaway
3606 Alderwood Dr
Spring, TX 77388
MTC-00022412
From: John D. Heintz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to support Dan Kegel's comments found at:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
My name is being added to his open letter at:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Thank you for your time,
John D. Heintz
John D. Heintz Senior Developer
1016 La Posada Dr. Suite 240 Austin TX 78752
T 512.380.0347 jheintz at isogen.com
http://www.isogen.com
MTC-00022413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Please do not consider the ridiculous nature of the law suit
between AOL and Microsoft. As a consumer and user of AOL I am sick
of constant courtroom tactics. We are sending poor messages to our
youth by showing them by our actions that it is better and more
productive financially to sue rather than work problems out. If AOL
needs more cash, they can raise their rates a buck.
Lily Rothman
[email protected]
Lily Rothman
MTC-00022414
From: Jason Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strenuously object to the Department of Justice settlement
proposal with Microsoft. This is a company that deliberately and
frequently flouted the law. It should be required to pay the price
and not be allowed to get a mincing slap on the wrist, only to
repeat its actions.
Jason Smith
MTC-00022415
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:08pm
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,
Newell Baldwin
38 N. Rim Road
Ransom Canyon, TX 79366-2226
MTC-00022416
From: Cost-Research
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemennt
To whom it may concern,
The DOJ and now the AOL Time Warner's lawsuit are turning this
whole settlement thing into a circus. Once you settle with the
states and the lawyers get their once of flesh, who will be next to
file a lawsuit? Is the Department of Justice setting thing up for a
free for all in lawsuits? Can Microsoft survive this kind of attack?
It just makes me sick to see a great company like Microsoft getting
torn apart by the department of Justice and a few cry baby companies
who are not smart enough to compete in the business world and have
to resort to lawsuits.
Microsoft has changed the world in the way we work and now they
are being punished for it. Sometimes it does not pay to be an
entrepreneur because if you get too successful the legal system will
take you down.
Lawyers just love to take on high profile companies just to make
a name for themselves. Just like the tobacco lawsuits, everybody
received a bunch of money and nothing has really changed. People
still smoke and the smokers have to pay for the payoffs. Please get
off Microsoft's back and let them concentrate on the next generation
of computer software; this will be the payoff for all of us!
Peter Huysing
MTC-00022417
From: Peter Desnoyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As the deadline for public comments is rapidly approaching, I
would like to submit my comments to the Department for
consideration. I am a software engineer with 13 years of experience,
primarily developing software for hardware devices in the networking
and telecommunications industry, working for Apple, Motorola, and a
series of small startups. Much of the work I have done is in an
industry which would not exist if it were not for the Justice
Department's prior actions against AT&T; in fact, long enough
before the MFJ, AT&T exerted enough power even outside of the
marketplace that it would have been illegal to connect third-party
devices (such as the ones I have worked on) to the Bell System
network.
My primary concern with the proposed settlement of the
Department's action against Microsoft is that it contains no
provisions to preserve a competitive market for third-party
networking hardware products which would be compatible with
Microsoft's products. The language of the settlement refers only to
application binary interfaces, between software components on a PC,
and appears to have no enforceable provisions related to the network
protocols and interfaces. In fact, the language related to security
appears to offer blanket immunity to hide the details of any network
protocols that are security-related. (note that many network
protocols widely regarded as more secure than Microsoft's homegrown
ones (e.g. Kerberos) have always published their interfaces, and
have relied on inherently secure mechanisms rather than attempted
secrecy for their security)
My fear is that by keeping network interfaces secret, and
changing them from release to release, Microsoft will be able to
prevent third parties from engaging in the legitimate business of
creating Microsoft-compatible networking devices, or worse yet be
able to pick and choose who will succeed in this market based on who
they bestow their favors on, regardless of what the market wants.
Microsoft would no doubt argue that they license this
information to third parties, so that the NetApps and EMCs of the
industry, for instance, are able to produce Microsoft-compatible
systems. However unless this information is provided on a standard,
non-discriminatory basis (e.g. as part of the documentation for some
level of MSDN subscription), it will not be available to either
small startups or open-source developers, both of which are
responsible for much of the competition and innovation in this area.
By failing to require that networking interfaces-including
security-related ones, which are essential to
interoperability-be documented on an open and non-
discriminatory basis, the
[[Page 27165]]
Department has missed a major opportunity to ensure open markets and
competition in a significant market.
Finally, I would like to say that I fully support the objections
that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has raised with the proposed
settlement, and feel that the state Attorney General would not be
representing me properly if they had not objected. I would draw your
attention to the following excerpt from the Commonwealth's court
filing of 12/7/01: "(3) to disclose technical information so
that rival handheld devices, servers and networks can interoperate
with Microsoft's dominant Windows operating system", which
brings up the same objection I have raised.
Thank you for your consideration,
Peter Desnoyers (781) 457-1165
[email protected]
Chinook Communications (617) 661-1979
[email protected]
100 Hayden Ave, Lexington MA 02421
MTC-00022418
From: Troy Wolverton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I wholeheartedly oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
anti-trust trial. The proposal basically rewards Microsoft for its
actions and does little to curtail its future behavior.
The proposed settlement is weaker than the one that was
discussed prior to Judged Jackson issuance of his findings of fact
and his proposed remedy. If anything, given that his ruling that
Microsoft is a monopoly and has abused its monopoly power has since
been unanimously upheld by the Court of Appeals, the remedy should
be even more restrictive than what was discussed before the findinds
were released.
Microsoft is like a child. Unless the government sets and
enforces clear boundaries on its behavior and punishes it severely
when it crosses the line, the company will continue to try to
circumvent the rules. That was the lesson of the earlier consent
decree, which Microsoft never bothered to follow. I fear that this
settlement will end with the same result.
Microsoft is an extremely aggressive company. It has already
translated its monopoly in desktop operating systems into a monopoly
in office productivity software and Internet browsers. It is
threatening to extend its monopoly into Web server operating
systems, operating systems for handheld devices, digital media
players and a slew of other areas.
It is against the national interest for Micrsoft to dominate all
of these areas. Already its dominance in desktop operating systems
and office software has led to little in the way of innovation and
an increase in the price of those components relative to other
computer components.
The company needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, this proposed
settlement will be little more than a speed bump in its path.
Troy Wolverton
84 Lippard Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94131
415.587.6687
[email protected]
[email protected]
Troy Wolverton
MTC-00022419
From: Peter Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello!
I want to share with you an idea for restoring competition in
the PC market. In particular, this remedy would make it possible to
promote both alternative, multi-boot operating systems and browsers
for the PC while diminishing MIcrosoft's monopoly. I call my idea
the Public Library Operating System Distribution.
Microsoft has a monopoly on Internet computers in public
libraries. Nonetheless, four other PC operating systems--
FreeBSD Unix, Linux, IBM OS/2 and BeOS--are perfectly capable
of providing the same service as the combination of Windows and
Internet Explorer. It would be a relatively simple task to compile
distributions of each of these altenative OSes in a form as simple
and minimal as possible since these OSes would only operate
browsers--Netscape, Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, Lynx--and
simple email programs. These distros might also inlcude the software
for FTP, Telnet or other services, but not much more for use in the
public libraries. Keeping these public library distributions as
minimal as possible would make them highly reliable and make the
task of system administration for the libraries as manageable as
possible. Microsoft should bear the cost of compiling these distros,
which should be quite low, as well as pay for the boot manager
software to make it possible to run multi-boot systems in the
libraries.
This would make the public aware that there are excellent
alternatives to Microsoft in an important public institution. If
Apple has problems with this remedy, then perhaps Microsoft could
purchase Macintosh computers and donate them to the public
libraries.
I hope that you will give serious thought to this remedy.
Microsoft could bear the cost entirely, as well it should.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter G. Smith
MTC-00022420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:09pm
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,
Robert Sanders
P.O. Box 899
Murphys, CA 95247
MTC-00022421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:10pm
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,
Frank Robins
5706 49th Ave Ct West
University Place, WA 98467
MTC-00022422
From: Levett, David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:13pm
Subject: My views on the settlement
To: [email protected]
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"
[[Page 27166]]
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 couldrun 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
Regards,
David Levett
MTC-00022423
From: James Kelly
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
James J. Kelly
Sr. Audio Producer
RadioCentral, Inc.
336 Harriet Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415)625-1725 (direct)
MTC-00022424
From: paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:12pm
Subject' Microsoft
Dear Mr. Attorney General,
Please read the attached letter which describe my feelings on
the Microsoft antitrust case.
Thank you, and may God be with you on all your decisions.
Respectfully,
Paul Rinaldi
17126 Hill Creek Court
Orland Park, IL 60467
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in support of the settlement of the antitrust case
against Microsoft by your Department of Justice, the states. After
three years of litigation, and three months of negotiation with a
court-appointed mediator, the time is right for a settlement. More
importantly, the terms seem as fair as could be expected in this
controversial matter.
To settle the case, Microsoft agreed to open its internal
Windows interfaces and server protocols to competitors, provide non-
discriminatory licenses to its copyrights and patents to competitors
who want them, and license Windows to the largest computer makers
without negotiation under uniform terms and pricing.
Additionally, Microsoft agreed to make it easy to substitute
non-Microsoft programs for integral programs in Windows, refrain
from exclusive marketing agreements, and subject itself to a three-
person government- sponsored on-site technical committee. In
addition, any third party will be free to file complaints about
alleged non-compliance with Microsoft's new Internal Compliance
Officer, and the technical committee established by the settlement.
You have supported the settlement process so far. Now, please do
what you can to get the settlement approved by the federal court.
Then, we can all move on, hopefully to still waters and greener
pastures.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Paul Rinaldi
MTC-00022425
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11pm
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 desk
top; 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,
Calvin Heide
2705 Hillrise Drive
Las Cruces, NM 88011
MTC-00022426
From: Larry Larsen
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft
If you don't see Microsoft as a monopoly, it is because you
haven't worked in any of the companies that M$ has forced out of
business.
If you create any kind of software or method, and Microsoft
decides they want your business, you are sunk because you can't
compete when they own the ball, bat, and field and are giving away
your products for "free".
It is going to take a genuine King Solomon to figure out what is
"fair" because no amount of money is going to bring back
the businesses and livelihood that was stolen by M$. The biggest
concern of mine is preventing it from happening in the future.
Thank you,
LDL
Larry D. Larsen
[[Page 27167]]
Multimedia Editor
Macromedia Certified Flash Developer
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies
http://www.poynter.org
MTC-00022428
From: Kirk Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
Microsoft does not provide customers with an option. This is
clearly displayed by the lack of document editors and essential
office suites that do not work seemlessly with Microsoft's OS. Also,
lack of customer choice is clearly displayed by the outlandish
pricing that Microsoft is able to maintain for its software,
compared to it's competitors, who have good enough office suite
products to compete with such pricing if the platform supported
these alternatives. The fact remains that Microsoft prevents 3rd
party software from working well with the windows operating system
because of its policy of protecting this information from
competition from other software vendors. Thus, 3rd party software
vendors can only eek out their existence at the mercy of how
Microsoft decides to change their OS and what kind of information
they will reveal to their partners and competitors.
Kirk Walker
MTC-00022429
From: Deward Blevins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:15pm
Subject: Disappointed and Disillusioned
I am deeply disappointed and disillusioned by the DOJ and
Congress by their handling of the Microsoft cases.
A smaller company would never be allowed the delaying tactics
Microsoft has employed.
There should have been contempt citations issued months ago with
penalties levied for the actions of Microsoft. Repeat offenders
should not be told "to play nice and we will take your word
that you will". The court has repeatedly done this. It is time
Microsoft actually paid some kind of penalty for their crimes.
Donating hardware and software to schools is NO penalty. Most of
our larger companies already do so as a matter of civic duty and it
is good advertising.
As a deeply patriotic person who believes in the inherent
goodness of our country it makes me sad to see the way the handling
of this case continues to prove the idea that enough money will put
you above the law. Much of the general public already doubts the
integrity of our basic institutions. This case and its handling
continues to weaken our faith. It would come as no surprise to me if
the investigators, legislators and courts begin to come under
increasing scrutiny by the public.
MTC-00022430
From: Dave Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I DO NOT AGREE....
DAVID ROSE
NATIVE BORN U.S. CITIZEN
MTC-00022431
From: Kevin Herrboldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed settlement on the grounds that will do
little to alter Microsoft's practices and does not undo damages
caused by Microsoft's illegal monopoly behavior.
A specific point I take issue with involves tying and bundling.
Every release of Microsoft software seems to limit what users can do
with their systems and increase Microsoft's control over people's
computers and their use. This creates an environment that is almost
impossible for any software vendor to succeed with any great success
as well as hurting end users.
I have been in the computer industry for over 20 years and have
watched it grow from a cottage industry to a vibrant competitive
market, only to collapse back into one dominant controller
(Microsoft) and a "cottage industry" of smaller players
who are left to earn meager profits on the fringes of computing. As
soon as an area gets big enough to draw Microsoft's attention, they
move into the space and push all players out. A classic example of
this is with word processors. Microsoft Office became dominant due
to the leverage of Microsoft's Windows operating system, virtually
destroying viable options such as WordPerfect and Ami Pro.
Please reconsider the settlement agreement. I feel it does not
go far enough to address Microsoft's transgressions.
Respectfully,
Kevin Herrboldt
[email protected]
MTC-00022432
From: Benjamin Graff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the settlement because Microsoft's many API's will
never be disclosed. The settlement defines API too narrowly so
Microsoft will not these important API's. bmg
MTC-00022433
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:13pm
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,
Frank Robins
5706 49th Ave Ct West
University Place, WA 98467
MTC-00022434
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14pm
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 Wilson
4793 US 62
Calvert City, KY 42029
MTC-00022435
From: Patrick Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The wrong issues are being focused on. And in fact the accused
group isn't the most important one committing a crime.
Microsoft has been found to have broken many laws, and when it
has lost in court it has continued breaking those same laws in
complete disregard for its judgments. That makes it a CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATION. Just like the mafia. But while the US government tries
to take away business from the mafia, limit their income, and put
them in jail, Microsoft is given nothing but a slap on the wrist.
The proposed judgments against Microsoft are barely even that.
Criminals in the government have intentionally allowed their crimes
to go unpunished, and are as guilty as they are. Who committed the
greater crime: the company committing the act, or the politicians
and judges allowing it to occur? The mafia is a small player in
comparison to the big industries given free reign in the US today.
Microsoft's crimes are merely a symptom of the underlying
problem: corrupt politicians and judges at state and federal levels.
That Microsoft is guilty is undisputed. They have been proven
criminals again and again in court since twenty years ago. While
corrupt politicians and judges take their bribes and look the other
way, it will never stop. The events at Enron are also symptoms of
this corruption of our political system.
[[Page 27168]]
How many politicians have received enormous amounts of money from
them over the years? And from how many other corporations?
Microsoft has done nothing legal to earn their fortunes. Were it
not for their illegal, monopolistic actions, the company probably
wouldn't even exist today. Anything useful they have was copied or
stolen from superior competitors. But it's the fact that the
government has done nothing to stop them that is the truly heinous
crime:
1. Microsoft blatantly stole Apple's interface design. It was
proven in court. Their penalty: none. They were even allowed to
continue using it. The result: Apple is smaller each day, despite
their innovative efforts. Bribery in our political system, nothing
more.
2. Through the 80's, and until 1994, the Justice Department
allowed Microsoft to openly extort a payment (bribe) for every PC
sold, whether it included any of their software or not. When it
finally ended in 1994, their penalty was: none. Corrupt politicians
and judges again.
3. It was proven in court that Microsoft broke the law when they
started giving away Internet Explorer, to drive Netscape out of
business. Their penalty: nothing significant. And they are still
giving it away. Corruption in politics and in court, all over again.
Will it never end? Bill Gates" illegally-earned personal
fortune is probably far bigger than any mafia crime family's, and
the US government is doing nothing serious about it. And it's only a
fraction of the money earned by Microsoft executives. Any politician
or judge who isn't against Microsoft would have to be on their
payroll, considering the magnitude of their crimes. Those
politicians are probably the same people who have been on Enron's
payroll for all of these years (you know who you are, and
retribution against you will come). Microsoft is merely a little
fish in a big pond.
Proposal: a new independent task force which puts corrupt
politicians and judges in jail, focusing on those who received money
from Microsoft and Enron. In fact, the only way that would ever
happen impartially is by including representatives from England and
Germany and France and other countries who didn't receive such
bribes (otherwise the appointees to the task force will be biased
like always; of course I'm assuming they haven't been likewise
compromised). Then we'll worry about Microsoft. While the political
system is corrupt, a fair judgment against Microsoft or any other
criminal organization will never occur. As long as Bill Gates and
the other Microsoft executives are billionaires (or even
millionaires), justice has not been served.
-Patrick Hayes, Jr.
Software engineer
(US location withheld; I don't want to lose my job)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022436
From: Mr. Gravity
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing to urge the Dept. of Justice not to accept the
proposed settlement with Microsoft Corporation. The issues it
addresses and remedies it proposes will do nothing to stop the real
problem at hand, that Microsoft controls almost every aspect of PC
computing, period! Anything less than a breakup of Microsoft into
three separate companies (Operating Systems, Software Applications
and Internet Applications) will the computing world have any prayer
of some day breaking free of Microsoft's stranglehold on the
industry.
I strongly urge the DOJ to abandon the current proposed
settlement with Microsoft and fight for a breakup of Microsoft.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Glenn Cook, President
Zero Gravity Corporation
MTC-00022437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:16pm
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,
Art Gunter
1359 Whitfield Park Drive
Savannah, GA 31406
MTC-00022438
From: Tom T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--is bad
If this settlement goes in effect, it will give Microsoft to
much latitude to sabatoge any competeing OS.s that might be more
stable, quick and have an open architecture that would benefit any
inprovements in OS or the applications that run within a competeing
OS.
MTC-00022439
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:15pm
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,
Otto Svancara
1817 Clare Ct
San Jose, CA 95124-2301
MTC-00022440
From: Phillip Karlsson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is NOT in the public
interest. My background is primarily in technology. I have an
undergraduate Computer Science degree from Cornell University, and
have been working in the technology industry for the past 7 years.
In that time I have written products both for Microsoft's products,
as well as for other Operating Systems. I am currently an MBA
student at NYU's Stern School of Business. This is the background
from which I am evaluating the proposed settlement.
This email concerns only the remedies, as it has already been
upheld that they have a monopoly, and _have_ used that
power illegally. The settlement must address both redress for past
behavior, as well as remedies that will prevent them from continuing
to act anti-competitively in the future.
There are several problems with the settlement, which have been
written about extensively elsewhere. So the following is a short
summary of the problems:
-Definitions of affected products are overly specific.
Given Microsoft's past behavior of using semantics to avoid
following the spirit of a law or settlement, this is a large
loophole which they are undoubtedly already planning to take
advantage of.
-it does not provide methods of encouraging or aiding the
creation of alternate Operating Systems (OS) or middleware layers
that emulate the Windows APIs. This, going forward, is the best way
to create competition. A new layer or OS that could run Windows
applications would immediately cut into the "virtuous
circle", or "positive feedback cycle", that has
allowed Microsoft's growth thus far. Forcing Microsoft to publish
the full APIs for all their operating systems and middleware layers
and applications,both current, and future changes, would restore
vast amounts of competition, and would allow other companies to
pursue innovation, in ways that Microsoft has failed to ever do in
its corporate history, without fear of being
[[Page 27169]]
crushed by Microsoft creating undocumented changes in its
compatibility.
-Microsoft should not be allowed to patent, or should not
be allowed to charge licensing fees for patents, on the APIs
themselves. Although they would be allowed to patent methodologies
of implementing algorithms, in accordance with the law, they would
not be allowed to use patents to prevent competing products from
creating compatible APIs.
-Due to their monopoly power, they should not be allowed
to have restrictive licensing agreement with:
-applications writers who use their development tools
-applications writers who require their middleware (i.e.,
if I'm writing a web-browser replacement, they should not be able o
prohibit me from calling their Windows Media Player from my
application).
-Enterprise (or other large) Customers, charging varying
bundling prices depending on whether Office is included, charging
per CPU instead of per seat using Windows, etc. -OEMs, similar
to above.
Given these glaring problems, as well as others not listed
above, the current proposed settlement is NOT in the public
interest. Primarily this is because it fails to take appropriate or
sufficient measures to prevent this convicted monopolist from
continuing current anti-competitive practices.
Thank you,
-Phillip Karlsson
New York, NY
MTC-00022441
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:15pm
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,
Don and Rachel White
38546 Strawbridge Parkway
Sandy, OR 97055
MTC-00022442
From: Tony Sabbadini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13am
Subject: Anti-trust getting out of hand
Department of Justice,
I'm glad you have reached a settlement agreement with Microsoft,
for I have lost patience with this entire case and cannot stand to
further see Microsoft competitors abuse the court system to further
their own business goals. The recent lawsuit filed by AOL claiming
that Microsoft has "unfairly" competed against them
doesn't just border on the frivolous- but jumps into the realm
of ludicrous. To the knowledge of myself and anyone or any source I
know, Microsoft has never held a gun to someone's head and told them
they have to use their browser software. All Microsoft has done is
offer a software package at a better value proposition than their
Netscape (now AOL) competition. They did this by bundling Internet
Explorer into the Windows operating system at NO ADDITIONAL COST to
the consumer. If anyone complains about free software, it would be
the competitors who can't offer the consumer such a deal.
Additionally, by integrating the browser into the OS, Microsoft has
made the Internet a more fluid experience that ties into the off
line realm of computing. Microsoft wrote their own software, did not
steal it, and did not force anyone to use it. Consumers should
applaud this, but because they have been brainwashed by jealous
Microsoft competitors who can't compete on such a level, they vilify
Microsoft as a "monopolist". If Microsoft ever stopped
offering software at a lower value proposition than it does now, our
"free market" should put them out of business and allow
a competitor to take their place. The government cannot and should
NOT try to accelerate this process by interfering with the
successful. Not only does this reek of hypocrisy, but also
discourages any budding entrepreneur from creating and building
something new. Stop listening to these weak competitors and get rid
of this case!!!
MTC-00022443
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14pm
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,
Tommy Crist
784 Butterfield School Rd
Abilene, TX 79606
MTC-00022444
From: Michael Manojlovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As an Information Systems instructor within the largest
university in Pennsylvania, I am acutely aware of the impact that
Microsoft has had on both advancing and retarding progress in
software development. It is my opinion that the negative effects of
Microsoft's continuing predatory practices far outweighs any
positive design factors. I further feel the proposed settlement is
entirely inadequate at curbing further monopolistic transgressions.
Michael Manojlovich Instructor, Information Sciences and Technology
Penn State University
MTC-00022445
From: paul campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that settlement proposed for the Microsoft is inadequate
The settlement acts to inoculate if not encourage anti-competitive
practices in the future. Microsoft has not "gotten" that
they did anything wrong.
They will continue to harm any legitimate completion and now
have a settlement that serves as barrier to future complaints. As an
example, here is a phrase from a license that Microsoft offers. Here
Microsoft is directing themselves at non-profit competitors, in many
cases volunteer programmers. I understand the need to protect
intellectual property but this type of language intends to prevent
any competition from gaining any sort of hold. 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); * * *
MTC-00022446
From: ken klavonic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
MTC-00022447
From: Rose Rothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please note our comments about the following statement:
"AOL Time Warner, through its subsidiary, Netscape
[[Page 27170]]
Communications Corporation, filed suit Tuesday against Microsoft for
alleged anticompetitive conduct regarding its browser, charging that
Microsoft's Internet Explorer illegally harmed Netscape's Navigator
browser." Our comment on this matter: I have been running
Microsoft Windows for years and using Netscape as my browser not
Explorer. I find this new suit completely frivolous against
Microsoft. I chose to use Netscape as my browser since I first
started using the internet a number of years ago. I am sure,
millions of other people are doing the same. It is not as though one
does not have a choice what they want to use as their browser.
Hopefully the courts will see this for what it is, harassment
towards a company that has cause NO HARM against them or anyone.
Please put a stop to this by seeing there is no case here for AOL
Time Warner and see it for what it is.
We thank you for stopping this at this point for the good of the
public and for Microsoft.
Rose Rothe and Dietmar Rothe
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA
[email protected]
MTC-00022448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17pm
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,
Joseph Phelan
1103 Tequesta Drive
Barefoot Bay, FL 32976-7042
MTC-00022449
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18pm
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,
ChrsiCarver Carver
6325 FALLS OF NEUSE RD.
RALEIGH, NC 27615
MTC-00022450
From: Adriano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There's no choice, Microsoft MUST be split into two separated
units: one for Operating Systems and another for all other
activities. This is the only way we can have a free and IT market.
MTC-00022451
From: Will Crowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Judgement
To whom it may concern:
In many ways the solution to the Microsoft case is simple:
LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME
However, the settlement, as it now reads, will not provide the
above simple remedy-one which even a small child can
understand.
If Microsoft cannot be broken up into separate companies
(practically the only outcome which completely solves the problem)
then three other solutions come to mind:
1. Force Microsoft to unbundle applications from the operating
system.
2. Force Microsoft to give away it's operating system free of
charge (which will effect the same result as #1 above).
3. Force Microsoft to release the source code to its operating
system into the public domain. I can think of no other remedies
which can appropriately punish Microsoft for their monopolistic
tactics. Monetary damages will not hurt Microsoft, and will only
enrichen lawyers and others closely associated with the case. In the
present settlement, the public will lose.
Please do your duty and punish Microsoft.
Thank you,
William Crowe
2421 NW 114th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
MTC-00022452
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20pm
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.
Why not go back to investigating Janey Reno, former president
Bill Clinton and senator Hillary Clinton.
Their legal transgressions should keep you busy for years
Sincerely,
Holt Confer
58 Saddle Court
Sinking Spring, PA 19608-9514
MTC-00022453
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20pm
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,
Gloria Stricklin
3676 Yucca Mesa Rd
Yucca Valley, CA 92284
MTC-00022455
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe AOL's latest lawsuit is an attempt to overturn
Microsofts Settlement and also to go after Microsoft because they
are a cash rich company. AOL's position about being pushed out of
the Browser market is absurd they must believe that the average
computer user is stupid if just because and icon is on the Desktop
they won't be able to find and alternative browser I have used both
browsers over the years with my first being Netscape but after
switching back and forth
[[Page 27171]]
several times I came to the conclusion Microsoft Explorer was a
better product, not because it was merged somewhat with Windows but
many things including ease of use and Appearance! AOL's own software
inter mingles with Windows when it installs also and changes basic
Windows settings, I know because I subscribe to their service and
have for several years and they have been very uncompetetive with
there instant messaging service Also! They could still be
competetive in the browser market if they would have applied the
resources to produce a better product instead of giving it to
Lawyers!
But as with children or those that can't do they want to blame
someone else!
Dennis Kleindorfer
601 East New York Ave.
DeLand,FL 32724
[email protected]
MTC-00022457
From: Philip Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Its a bad idea. I'll leave it at that.
Boinky boink doo doo
MTC-00022458
From: Michael E. Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my concern at the settlement proposed
between the United States and Microsoft. From all I can tell, the
settlement relies far too much upon the good faith of Microsoft to
avoid any future anti-competitive abuse of their desktop computer
monopoly. The company's previous disregard of consent decrees should
make it clear that a more enforceable solution is warranted.
Information processing and exchange is an enormous part of the
United States economy. Ceding control of such an essential component
of our economic well-being to a single company which has, in the
past, shown indifference, if not scorn, for the interests of any
party other than the company and its stockholders is risky at best.
In the absence of either strong regulation of Microsoft's practices
or of a structural remedy that can reduce the company's ability to
extend its monopoly, we may well be ceding our country's economic
future to a powerful entity which is not accountable to the will of
the country's citizens.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Cohen
MTC-00022459
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21pm
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,
Bert Powers
7421 Raines Rd
Liberty, MO 64068
MTC-00022460
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:22pm
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,
Bonnie Hackett
167 Belle Marsh RD
South Berwick, ME 03908-2148
MTC-00022461
From: mstipicevic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like you to reconsider the current proposed final
judgement. The current judgement does not describe broadly enough
the correct conduct Microsoft must follow. For example, the
definition of "Microsoft Middleware" may allow something
as simple as a version change to make certain restrictions null and
void. This would allow Microsoft to continue with its current
practices. Also, the PFJ should encourage multiple operating systems
and products for Intel platforms, not simply force Microsoft to
comply with OEM requests. Thank you for your time and please
consider my opinion when making your final decision.
-Mike Stipicevic Jr.
MTC-00022462
From: Eric Axley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:26pm
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.
Eric Axley
9508 Trails End Rd.
Knoxville, TN 37931
MTC-00022463
From: John Gorham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From the section in the Competitive Impact Statement entitled
Microsoft's Campaign to Eliminate the Netscape Threat, it seems
clear that Microsoft made a well-planned and deliberate attempt to
destroy its smaller rival. And it almost succeeded. Netscape would
probably not be alive today if it hadn't been bought by AOL.
Netscape's own mistakes certainly contributed to its problems, but,
as I understand the issue, this shouldn't make any difference.
According to our system, Netscape should have been allowed to stand
or fall on its own merits, as judged by consumers. It should not
have had to work in a manipulated environment that made success
essentially impossible.
Yours sincerely,
John Gorham
MTC-00022464
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:25pm
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,
Horst Ehrhardt
143 Walden Ridge Dr.
Crossville, TN 38558
MTC-00022465
From: ECONOMIDES, Nicholas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:22pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed settlement in the current
Microsoft case
Ms. Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse,
[[Page 27172]]
Attached please find my comment on the proposed settlement in
the current Microsoft case. Please note that there are three
attached documents:
1. The main document: Comment of Nicholas S. Economides on the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment
2. Attachment A: CV of Nicholas Economides
3. Attachment B: Electronic copy of Nicholas Economides (2001),
"United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of Antitrust in the New
Economy," Symposium: Cyber Rights, Protection, and Markets,
UWLA Law Review, (April 2001).
Please acknowledge receipt. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Nicholas Economides
Stern School of Business
44 West 4th Street
New York NY 10012-1126
voice (212) 998-0864, (917) 776-8777
fax (212) 995-4218
[email protected]
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. STATE OF
NEW YORK ex. rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., V.
Plaintiffs, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
Comment of Nicholas S. Economides on the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Interest Of The Commenter
3. Criteria For Remedies
a. Remedies' Limitations Imposed By Rapid Technological
Change
b. Remedies' Limitations Imposed By Network Effects Of
Software
4. Evaluation Of The Proposed Remedies in the RPFJ
5. Evaluation Of Other Remedies Proposals
i. Structural Relief
a. Vertical Breakup
b. Hybrid Breakup
ii. Auctioning the Windows code
6. Conclusion
7. Attachment A: Curriculum Vitae of Nicholas Economides
8. Attachment B: "United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of
Antitrust in the New
Economy,"
1. Introduction
I am filing these brief comments on the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment ("RPFJ") \1\ and Competitive Impact
Statement ("CIS") \2\ to provide the Justice
Department and the court with a useful economic analysis to assist
the court in judging the appropriateness of the remedy in the RPFJ.
I believe that the RPFJ is in the "public interest," as
that test is applied under the Tunney Act. Accordingly, the RPFJ
should be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Microsoft Corp., Stipulation and
Revised Proposed Final Judgment (November 6, 2001).
\2\ United States v. Microsoft Corp., Competitive Impact
Statement (November 15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Interest Of The Commenter
I am professor of economics at the Stem School of Business of
New York University specializing in industrial organization and
antitrust with particular emphasis on network industries. I am
filing this submission in my own personal capacity and not on behalf
of the New York University or the Stem School of Business. I am not
employed or retained as a consultant on matters before this court by
Microsoft, the United States Department of Justice, the Attorneys
General of various States that sued Microsoft or any other
interested party. Furthermore, I am not receiving any compensation
from anyone for submitting these comments.
I have followed this case closely and extensively for the past
several years, in my academic capacity. Since 1995, I have created
and maintain the "Economics of Networks" web site on the
Internet at http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/that has acted as a
focal point for academic research in the economics of network
industries. Since the beginning of the present Microsoft case, I
have added a number of pages on this web site that contain
information and my analysis of this case. I have published three
articles in refereed journals \3\ on the specific issues
raised by the present matter and I attach the article "United
States v. Microsoft: A Failure of Antitrust in the New
Economy," Symposium: Cyber Rights, Protection, and Markets,
UWLA Law Review, (April 2001) as Attachment B. I also have published
over 70 articles in industrial organization, competition policy,
antitrust, networks, and telecommunications issues. My Curriculum
Vitae is attached as Attachment A. I believe that my academic
expertise, as well as my experience in competition policy in a
number of matters, including the merger of MCI with WorldCom and the
proposed merger of WorldCom with Sprint, as well as in a number of
regulatory telecommunications proceedings is relevant to the issues
raised in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These are:
Nicholas Economides (2001 a), "The Microsoft Antitrust
Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade: From Theory
to Policy, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7-39 (August 2001), lead
article. Nicholas Economides (2001b), "The Microsoft Antitrust
Case: Rejoinder," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade:
From Theory to Policy, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71-79 (August 2001).
Nicholas Economides (2001c), "United States v. Microsoft: A
Failure of Antitrust in the New Economy," Symposium: Cyber
Rights, Protection, and Markets, UWLA Law Review, (April 2001), lead
article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2001, the United States and the States of New
York, Illinois, North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan, Louisiana,
Wisconsin, Maryland and Ohio reached a proposed final judgment
(RPFJ) that will terminate litigation in the above cases. My
comments below are supportive of the proposed final judgment, argue
against other remedial proposals, and discuss various issues that
are relevant to the case. In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair
settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without
damaging the software industry.
3. Criteria For Remedies
In the Appeals Court decision, Microsoft was found liable of
monopolization of the market for operating systems for personal
computers. The objective of the remedial relief is to impose
prohibitions and requirements that will eliminate Microsoft's
practices that were found to be illegal, prevent the recurrence of
such practices, and restore the threat posed by middleware to
Microsoft's operating systems monopoly. The remedial relief should
also make sure that it does no damage the software industry, and
should take into account two important special factors that are
relevant to the case: (i) the very fast technological growth in
these two markets; and (ii) the existence of network effects in the
market for operating systems and the market for software
applications.
a. Remedies" Limitations Imposed By Rapid Technological
Change
Any intervention by antitrust authorities creates a disruption
in the workings of markets. The objective of the remedial relief is
to accomplish the objectives mentioned in the previous paragraph
without damaging efficient production and competition in the market.
The potential damage that antitrust intervention can produce is
larger when it is applied to an industry such as software with fast
technological change, where leaps to new and more efficient
technologies are expected, while the specific nature of the future
winning technology is unknown. Firms in the software business
confess that they are uncertain of the future winning technology in
their field of business. Antitrust authorities know even less than
the firms in the field. It is plainly difficult to predict future
winning technologies and therefore it is very hard to fashion an
antitrust remedy with an accurate prediction of its effect on
industry structure and competition a few years down the road. Of
course, this uncertainty is multiplied when the remedy creates a
significant intervention in the industry. Therefore, lacking the
knowledge of the effects of their actions, it is in the public
interest that antitrust authorities and courts avoid very extensive
intervention in industries with fast technological change. It is
best to intervene only to the extent that (i) intervention reverses
the effects of actions for which liability was established; and (ii)
the effects of the intervention are predictable.
Another implication of very fast technical change in software is
that the boundaries among the software products are fungible. Over
time, these boundaries can be redrawn. New functions may be
incorporated in larger programs, and sometimes it is more efficient
to do so. An intervention that fits well in the present market may
be counterproductive or irrelevant soon.
b. Remedies" Limitations Imposed By Network Effects Of
Software
The second special factor to be considered is that the Microsoft
case focuses on markets with network effects, where the value to a
buyer of an extra unit (say of Windows) is higher when more units
are sold, everything else being equal. The existence of network
effects has crucial implications on market structure and the ability
of antitrust authorities to affect it. In markets with strong
network effects, even in the absence Of anti-competitive acts, the
existence of network effects in markets such as the market for
operating systems of PCs, results in very
[[Page 27173]]
significant inequalities in market shares and profits. The resulting
equilibrium market structure can be called a "natural
oligopoly" where very few firms dominate the market. The
structural features of natural oligopoly for software market cannot
be altered by antitrust intervention without very significant losses
for society. The very nature of markets with network effects implies
that the ability of antitrust authorities to alter market stricture
in such industries is limited. I discuss this issue next.
In assessing the Microsoft case, it is important to remember
that the case focuses on markets with network effects. Network
effects define crucial features of market structure that have to be
taken into consideration in understanding competition and
potentially anti-competitive actions in these markets.
A market exhibits network effects (or network
externalities) \4\ when the value to a buyer of an extra unit
is higher when more units are sold, everything else being equal. In
a traditional network, network externalities arise because a typical
subscriber can reach more subscribers in a larger network.\5\ In a
virtual network,* network externalities arise because larger sales
of component A induce larger availability of complementary
components B1, ..., Bn, thereby increasing the value of component A.
The increased value of component A results in further positive
feedback? For example, the existence of an abundance of Windows-
compatible applications increases the value of Windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The word externality means that a good's value is not
intermediated in a market. For the purposes of this paper, we will
use the words "network effects" and "network
externaities" interchangeably.
\5\ See Nicholas Economides, The Economics of Networks, 14
Int'l J. Indus. Org. at 675-699, (visited Apr.23, 2001) at
http://www.stem.nyu.edu/networks/top.html (visited January 15,
2001).
A virtual network is a collection of compatible goods (that
share a common technical platform).
For example, all VHS video players make up a virtual network.
Similarly, all computers running Windows 98 can be thought of as a
virtual network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of crucial features of markets with network
effects that distinguish them from other markets. First, markets
with strong network effects where firms can chose their own
technical standards are "winner-take-most" markets. That
is, in these markets, there is extreme market share and profits
inequality.\8\ The market share of the largest firm can easily be a
multiple of the market share of the second largest, the second
largest firm's market share can be a multiple of the market share of
the third, and so on. This geometric sequence of market shares
implies that, even for small n, the nth firm's market share is tiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Despite the cycle of positive feedbacks, it is
typically expected that the value of component A does not explode to
infinity because the additional positive feedback is expected to
decrease with increases in the size of the network.
See Nicholas Economides & Frederick Flyer, Compatibility and
Market Structure for Network Goods, Discussion Paper
EC-98-02, Stem School of Business, N.Y.U., 1998,
(visited Apr.23, 2001) at http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/
98-02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, abundance of applications written for Windows
increases the value of Windows and induces more consumers to buy
Windows. This increases the incentive for independent applications
writers to write applications for Windows, and this further
increases sales and market share for Windows. Moreover, consumers
are willing to pay more for the brand with the highest market share
(since it has more associated applications), and therefore profits
associated with this brand can be a large multiple of profits of
other platforms. This implies a very large market share for Windows,
a small market share for the Mac, a very small market share for the
third competitor, and almost negligible shares for the fourth and
other competitors.
Second, due to the natural extreme inequality in market shares
and profits in such markets at any point in time, there should be no
presumption that there were anti-competitive actions that were
responsible for the creation of the market share inequality or the
very high profitability of a top firm. Great inequality in sales and
profits is the natural equilibrium in markets with network
externalities and incompatible technical standards. No anti-
competitive acts are necessary to create this inequality.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Robert E. Litan, Roger G. Noll, William D.
Nordhaus, & Frederic Scherer, Remedies Brief Of Amici Curiae On
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) at www.aeibrookings.org/
publications/related/brief.pdf (visited Apr.23, 2001). Litan et al.
(2000) err in reasoning that Microsoft's very high profitability is
a clear indication of monopolization in the antitrust sense. High
profitability for the top platform is natural in this winner-take-
most market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, because "winner takes most" is the natural
equilibrium in these markets, attempting to superimpose a different
market structure, (say one of all firms having approximately equal
market shares), is futile and counterproductive. If a different
market structure were imposed by a singular structural act (say a
breakup of a dominant firm), the market would naturally deviate from
it and instead converge to the natural inequality equilibrium. If
forced equality were imposed as a permanent condition, it would
create significant social inefficiency, as discussed below.
Fourth, in network markets, once few firms are in operation, the
addition of new competitors, say under conditions of free entry,
does not change the market structure in any significant way. The
addition of a fourth competitor to a triopoly hardly changes the
market shares, prices, and profits of the three top competitors.\10\
This is true under conditions of free entry. Therefore, although
eliminating barriers to entry can encourage competition, the
resulting competition does not significantly affect market
structure. In markets with strong network effects, antitrust
authorities cannot significantly affect equilibrium market structure
by eliminating barriers to entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Economides & Flyer, supra note 8.
The table below, taken from this paper, shows market coverage
and prices as the number of firms with incompatible platforms
increases, Maximum potential sales was normalized to 1. Table h
Quantities, Market Coverage, And Prices Among Incompatible Platforms
Number Sales of Sales of Sales of Market Price Price of Price of
Price of firms largest second third coverage of second third of
smallest and largest.
Note that the addition of the fourth firm onward makes
practically no difference in the sales and prices of the top three
firms.
In the Microsoft case, both sides had the chance to address this
issue, but failed to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, the fact that the natural equilibrium in network
industries is winner-take- most with very significant market
inequality does not imply that competition is weak. Competition on
which firm will create the top platform and reap most of the
benefits is, in fact, very intense.
Sixth, there is a more fundamental concern about the application
of antitrust in network industries.\11\ In industries with
significant network extermalities, under conditions of
incompatibility between competing platforms, monopoly may maximize
social surplus. When strong network effects are present, a very
large market share of one platform creates significant network
benefits for this platform which contribute to large
consumers" and producers" surpluses. It is possible to
have situations where a breakup of a monopoly into two competing
firms of incompatible standards reduces rather than increases social
surplus because network externalities benefits are reduced. This is
another way of saying that de facto standardization is valuable,
even if done by a monopolist.\12\
Seventh, in network industries, the costs of entry may be higher
but the rewards of success may also be higher compared to non-
network industries. Thus, it is unclear if there is going to be less
entry in network industries compared to traditional industries. If a
requirement for entry is innovation, one can read the previous
statement as saying that it is unclear if innovation would be more
or less intense in network industries. The dynamics of the
innovation process in the winner-take-most environment of network
industries are not sufficiently understood by academic economists so
that they could give credible advice on this issue to antitrust
authorities. However, in the last two decades we have observed very
intense competition in innovative activities in network industries
uffinanced by capital markets.
Eighth, the existence of an installed base of consumers favors
an incumbent. However, competitors with significant product
advantages or a better pricing strategy can overcome the advantage
of an installed base. :3 Network effects intensify competition, and
an entrant with a significantly better product can unseat the
incumbent. In network industries, we often observe Schumpeterian
races for market dominance. This is a consequence of the winner-
take-most natural equilibrium combined with the high intensity of
competition that network externalities imply.
4. Evaluation Of The Proposed Remedies in the RPFJ
Evaluating the RPFJ in the framework of an industry with strong
network externalities and fast technical change, I conclude that
this is a fair settlement that Economides & Flyer, supra note 8,
show that, in market conditions similar to the ones in the OS
software market, social welfare (total social surplus) can be higher
in monopoly. The table below, taken from this paper, shows profits,
consumers" and total surplus in a
[[Page 27174]]
market where firms produce incompatible products, as the number of
competitors I increase.
Table 2: Profits, Consumers' and Total Surplus Among Incompatible Platforms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profits of Profits of Profits of Total industry Consumers'
Total number of firms largest firm second firm third firm profit suprlus Total suprlus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 0.1481 .............. .............. 0.1481 0.148197 0.29629651
2....................................................... 0.0197 7.159e-3 .............. 0.1168 0.173219 0.29001881
3....................................................... 0.1077 5.377e-3 3.508e-4 0.1135 0.175288 0.28878819
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A clear example of this is the win of VHS over Beta in the
United States consumer video recorders market. Beta was fast to
market and had a significant installed base in the five years of the
coexistence of the two competing standards. However, because VHS (i)
introduced earlier a recording tape of longer duration; (ii) used
wide and inexpensive licensing of its technology; and (iii) its
licensees had a much wider distribution system, VHS emerged as the
winner, and Sony stopped selling Beta recorders to the US consumer
market.
Imposes appropriate remedies for the violations for which
Microsoft was found liable. The RPFJ contains some terms that may be
seen as favorable to Microsoft, while, in most of its terms, it is
favorable to the plaintiffs. Overall, in my opinion, the settlement
is more favorable to the plaintiffs than what the final result of a
remedies hearing would have been, given the Appellate Court
decision.
There are substantial benefits in settling the case rather than
continuing litigation that is likely to result in a very similar
final outcome. There is substantial uncertainty associated with the
judicial process, which is awfully slow compared to the rate of
progress in the computing industry. Given the position of Microsoft
in the computing industry, the added uncertainty of an extended
remedies trial would affect adversely not only Microsoft, but also
the rest of the computing industry.
The provisions of the settlement that may be seen as favorable
to Microsoft are:
(i) no structural changes, that is, no breakup of the company;
(ii) Microsoft is not restricted from adding functions to the
Windows operating system;
(iii) there are no general restrictions imposed on product
bundling by Microsoft; and
(iv) there is no wide disclosure of source code; mandated
disclosures are limited to interfaces. I discuss each one briefly.
(i) No structural changes
In my opinion, a structural change would be too draconian,
especially after the narrowing of the liability by the Appellate
Court, and would result in other inefficiencies. It is correctly
avoided, and, after the Court of Appeals Decision, USDOJ correctly
announced that it would not pursue a breakup (even before it entered
into a settlement agreement).
(ii) No restrictions on adding functions to Windows
Freezing Windows in its present from and functionality and
mandating that consumers would have to pay extra for future
additional functions to Windows would be very detrimental to
consumers" welfare. The addition of functions to Windows while
its price has been kept relatively low results is a big benefit to
consumers. It would be contrary to the public interest to take
actions that would decrease the benefit that consumers receive from
this market. Moreover, since this is an industry with very fast
technological change, freezing the functionality of a product would
quickly make it irrelevant. This is not and should not be the intent
of the application of antitrust law.
(iii) No bundling restrictions
The Appellate Court did not uphold the finding of liability of
the lower court on tying, which was based on a per se reasoning. The
Court of Appeals found that the per se analysis was inappropriate in
this case for a number of reasons. The Appellate Court sent back the
tying claim to the lower court to be judged (if the plaintiffs were
to pursue it) under a rule of reason approach. Under this approach,
the plaintiffs would have had to prove, in general terms, that the
harm done by the tying was larger than any pro- consumer or pro-
competitive benefits of the tying act. The plaintiffs decided not to
pursue this course of action. This was wise, since it was likely
that it would be very hard
to meet the standard of the Appellate Court. Thus, it makes
sense that the RPFJ does not impose general restrictions on
bundling.
(iv) No wide mandatory disclosure of source code
The source code is the intellectual property of Microsoft.
Confiscating intellectual property is a very extreme measure that
would discourage innovation. Imposing forced disclosure or licensing
would be very close to considering the operating system an essential
facility and imposing regulation. It is not necessary to take these
extreme measures to remedy the present violation.
The provisions of the settlement that are favorable to the
plaintiffs are: (i) The broad scope of definition of middleware
products; (ii) the requirement to disclose middleware interfaces;
(iii) the requirement to disclose server protocols; (iv) freedom to
install middleware software; (v) ban on retaliation; (vi) uniform
pricing of Windows for same volume sale; (vii) ban on exclusive
agreements; contract restrictions; and (viii) strict on-site
enforcement.
(i) The broad scope of definition of middleware products
The settlement defines "middleware" to include
browsers, e-mail clients, media players, instant messaging software,
and future new middleware developments. Most of these middleware
products have no chance to ever become a platform that would become
a threat to the Windows operating system. Therefore, by applying the
settlement terms on all middleware as defined above, the plaintiffs
much more favorable terms than they would have received from a
remedies trial. In such a trial, given the monopolization liability,
only middleware that could be a threat to Windows would have been
relevant, and the settlement (or other) terms would have been
applied only to such middleware. Here the plaintiffs achieved better
terms in the settlement than they were likely to get in a full
remedies trial.
(ii) The requirement to disclose middleware interfaces
Microsoft will be required to provide software developers with
the interfaces used by Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with
the operating system. This will allow development of competing (non-
Microsoft) products that come very close to most Microsoft
functions. Under the liability of monopolization, this is a
reasonable requirement for middleware that has some chance of
becoming a platform that will compete with Windows. When this
requirement is applied by RPFJ to all middleware, the plaintiffs are
getting better terms in the settlement than they were likely to get
in a full remedies trial.
(iii) The requirement to disclose server protocols
The settlement imposes interoperability between Windows and non-
Microsoft servers of the same level as between Windows and Microsoft
servers. Servers and their interoperability with Windows were not
part of the monopolization liability, and the plaintiffs would be
unlikely to get this term in a full remedies that.
(iv) Freedom to install middleware software
Computer manufacturers and consumers will be free to substitute
competing middleware software on Microsoft's operating system.
(v) Ban on retaliation
Microsoft will be prohibited from retaliating against computer
manufacturers or software developers for supporting or developing
certain competing software. This is a reasonable restriction since
Microsoft was found liable of monopolization.
(vi) Uniform pricing of Windows for same volume sale
Microsoft will be required to license its operating system to
key computer manufacturers on uniform terms for five years.
Microsoft will be allowed to provide quantity discounts. This
eliminates the possibility of offering different prices to
manufacturers that buy the same quantity.
[[Page 27175]]
The effects of this restriction on total consumers" and
producers" surplus are unknown. The likely effect of the
restriction will be a transfer of wealth from Microsoft to computer
makers (OEMs). There is no conclusive evidence in economic theory
that this restriction will increase total surplus of the combined
consumers plus OEMs plus Microsoft surplus. On the contrary, if
different OEMs faced different demand curves for PCs (because of
variations in the PCs they produce), and this information was known
to Microsoft, total surplus could be increased if Microsoft could
charge different prices to different OEMs for the same quantity of
sale. However, the imposition of this restriction can help avoid
possible retaliation of Microsoft, so in the present context, it may
be in the public interest.
(vii) Ban on exclusive agreements; contract restrictions
Microsoft will be prohibited from entering into agreements
requiring the exclusive support or development of certain Microsoft
software. This is a reasonable restriction since Microsoft was found
liable of monopolization.
(viii) Strict on-site enforcement
A panel of three independent, on-site, full-time computer
experts will help to enforce the terms of the settlement. The panel
will have full access to all of Microsoft's books, records, systems,
and personnel, including source code. The panel will also have the
authrity to resolve disputes about Microsoft's compliance. This
provides for a very strict enforcement mechnism and is a major
victory for the plaintiffs who have compained in the past that
Microsoft deviated from old agreements with the antitrust
authorities. I would caution that this panel should not be used as a
regulatory body. If regulation is ever to be imposed on the PC
industry, it should come as an Act of Congress rather than as a
gradual expansion of powers of this panel. As I have stated in the
attached paper, there are many reasons why we should avoid for some
time imposing regulation on the PC industry.
The above discussion shows that the proposed settlement covers a
number of dimensions and imposes a number of requirements that are
not strictly arising from the monopolization violation. In my
opinion, as part of this settlement, the defendant has conceded to
the plaintiffs more than the plaintiffs were likely to achieve in a
full remedies trial.
Evaluation Of Other Remedies Proposals
Here I evaluate other proposals, which I find detrimental to the
public interest, and I recommend that they should be rejected.
i. Structural Relief
a. Vertical Breakup
Structural relief is a draconian measure that should be reserved
for those cases where absolutely nothing else would work. In my
opinion, it is very likely that the conduct remedies of the present
proposed settlement will work, and there is no reason to resort to
draconian measures. Two types of remedies have been proposed. The
first is the "vertical breakup" imposed by Judge Jackson
(and vacated by the Appellate Court) that would divide Microsoft in
an operating systems company and an applications company.
Some have made the argument that the breakup is a surgical cut
and therefore will disrupt the industry the least. This is countered
by the facts. A breakup of Microsoft is an extremely disruptive
outcome, and it would, practically speaking, eliminate Microsoft as
a flexible and formidable competitor.
The argument, that, since AT&T's 1982 breakup was
successful, so would Microsoft's, is incorrect. AT&T was divided
into the long-distance company (AT&T), and seven regional
operating companies, each of which remained a regulated local
telecommunications monopoly until 1996. The destruction of
AT&T's long-distance monopoly encouraged competition, which
brought sharply lower prices and immense consumer benefits.\14\
There are a number of key differences between the two companies and
their competitive situations. And these differences make it very
likely that a Microsoft breakup, besides harming Microsoft, would
harm consumers and the computer industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ At the same time, the AT&T breakup did not
introduce competition at the local exchange level, and the Regional
Bell Operating Companies ("RBOCs") were allowed to
monopolize local telecommunications services as well as access to
long distance services. The success of competition in long distance
has been hampered by the continuing monopoly of the local exchange,
five years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to
open the local exchange to competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1981, AT&T was a 100-year-old regulated monopoly with
many layers of management. For historical reasons, the local phone
companies within the old AT&T, such as New York Telephone, were
managed separately from the "long lines" division. Thus,
it was not difficult to separate the divisions since they functioned
on many levels as separate companies. AT&T also had an abundance
of managers to help cope with the breakup. By contrast, Microsoft is
a young, entrepreneurial company run by very few top executives
(about 25), and its divisions are very fluid. While this has made
Microsoft one of the most efficient and successful companies around,
it also means that a break-up would pose significant managerial
problems and severely reduce the company's flexibility. Finally,
AT&T was a regulated utility and regulation guaranteed that the
companies emerging from the breakup stayed interconnected. In
contrast, the Microsoft breakup is likely to lead to
incompatibilities and further loss of efficiency.
The vertical two-way breakup plan was premised on the hope that
an autonomous applications company would create a new operating
system to compete with Windows. But more than 70,000 applications
run on Windows, creating what the government calls "the
applications barrier to entry" in the operating-system market.
However capable the new applications company, it still wouldn't be
able to single-handedly create a successful rival operating system.
Separately, even with a new applications company's support,
Microsoft's biggest operating-system competitor, Linux, is unlikely
to become a serious desktop threat to Windows.
A vertical breakup is likely to have detrimental effects. First,
the breakup is likely to result in higher prices. If DOJ is correct
and Microsoft kept its OS prices low so that it could exercise its
monopoly power in the adjacent browser market, the post-breakup Baby
Bill \15\ that inherits the operating systems will have no
incentive to keep the price low. The OS Baby Bill will no longer
have the incentive to disadvantage any applications companies. Thus,
the OS Baby Bill will now exercise the monopoly power it has and
raise the price of the operating system to the detriment of
consumers. If Microsoft has significant monopoly power because of
the "applications barrier to entry," higher prices will
be the direct result of the breakup. Second, as explained earlier,
the breakup is likely to eliminate the efficiencies that make
Microsoft a flexible and formidable competitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This is a word play on "Baby Bells" that
came out of AT&T and the first name of the CEO of Microsoft,
Bill Gates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The breakup is likely to temporarily eliminate the incentive for
interference from OSs to applications and vice versa. Of course, the
same could have been accomplished by conduct restrictions without
the cost and the disruption of the breakup. Moreover, without
permanent restrictions on the post-breakup functions of the
companies, the OS and the applications Baby Bills may enter into
each other's business soon after the breakup. It is very likely that
a few years after the breakup, one of the resulting companies will
dominate both markets.
b. Hybrid Breakup
A second breakup proposal is the "horizontal
breakup." This extreme proposal would break up Microsoft into
three identical companies, with each company acquiring the source
code of all the programs that Microsoft currently sells, and one
third of its employees.\16\ This "horizontal breakup" is
sometimes presented in combination with the "vertical
breakup" imposed by Judge Jackson (and vacated by the
Appellate Court). In this "hybrid breakup," first
Microsoft is broken into two or three companies according to the
type of program produced, and then the operating systems company is
broken into three parts creating four of five companies altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Litan, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides the loss of flexibility that any breakup would create, a
horizontal or hybrid breakup would also produce significant
incompatibilities with harmful effects to computer users,
applications writers, and Microsoft shareholders. Post-breakup
Microsoft companies coming out of a horizontal or a hybrid breakup
will have incentives to create incompatible versions of Windows for
two reasons. First, post-breakup Microsoft companies will try to
differentiate their operating systems to avoid strong competition,
leading to small price-cost margins. This is true even in industries
without network externalities and has been well established in the
economics literature on product differentiation.\17\ Second, post-
[[Page 27176]]
breakup Microsoft companies will try to make their operating systems
incompatible with each other in a race to become the dominant OS,
since the dominant firm receives the lion's share of profits in a
winner-takes-most world. This is established in the network
economics literature.\18\ Differentiating the operating systems by
Baby Bills would inevitably reduce the range of software that would
be compatible with each user's computer. As a consequence,
consumers" surplus would decrease. The emerging
incompatibilities would be a huge headache for both independent
applications writers and corporate IT departments. Such
incompatibilities would also hurt shareholders, since the combined
value of the resulting Baby Bills will be smaller than that of the
original Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Claude D'Aspremont, Jean Jaskold-Gabszewicz,
& Jacques-Francois Thisse, On Hotelling's Stability in
Competition, 47 Econometrica at 1145-50. See also Anver Shaked
& John Sutton, Relaxing Price Competition Through Product
Differentiation, 49 Rev. Econ. Stud. at 3-14. See Nicholas
Economides, The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Revisited, 24
Eur. Econ. Rev. at 345-368.
\18\ See Economides & Flyer, supra note 20, and
Nicholas Economides, Industry Fragmentation After A Microsoft
Breakup (2001) (on file with the author); Nicholas Economides, The
Microsoft Antitrust Case, J. Indus., Competition & Trade: From
Theory to Policy (Aug. 2001); see also Nicholas Economides,
The Microsoft Antitrust Case: Rejoinder, J. Indus., Competition
& Trade: From Theory to Policy (August 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Auctioning the Windows code
Another remedy proposal is auctioning the Windows source code.
Given the fluctuating stock market value of Microsoft, Windows
source code may be worth as much as $200 billion. No company can bid
that much cash in an auction. (Practically speaking, only a handful
of foreign governments could). This implies that the source code of
Windows would be sold forcibly at a small fraction of its
worth-and that would severely reduce the value of
shareholders" equity. Auctioning the Windows code would not
only effectively confiscate Microsoft's intellectual property, it
would also seriously reduce the incentive for innovation not only
for Microsoft but for all potential innovators. Moreover, source
code evolves. Over time, different firms will add and alter the
Windows code. Soon, incompatibilities will arise, with all the
negative consequences of diminution of network effects described
earlier.
6. Conclusion
In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that
achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the
software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper
intervention in the software industry, where fast technological
change and very significant network effects make it very difficult
to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention.
7. Attachment A: Curriculum Vitae of Nicholas Economides
8. Attachment B: "United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of
Antitrust in the New Economy," Electronic copy of Nicholas
Economides (2001), "United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of
Antitrust in the New Economy," Symposium: Cyber Rights,
Protection, and Markets, UWLA Law Review, (April 2001), lead
article.
MTC-00022466
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:25pm
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,
Bill Garrett
P.O. Box 1122
Madison, TN 37116
MTC-00022467
From: Mary Pinion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
My name is Mary Ellen Pinion and I am a resident of Bremen,
Alabama. I am writing to request that you settle the Microsoft
matter as soon as possible. I have been a MSFT stock investor for
several years and I have closely observed the MSFT court
proceedings. It seems to me the Utah Senator complaints stem from
interest in his home state based company. Also, I thought Netscape
folks were out of the big picture some time ago. The Microsoft case
has been pending now for over three years. I understand that
Microsoft has agreed to settle the case by opening their Windows
operating systems to competition from non-Microsoft software, and by
agreeing to avoid restrictive contractual agreements under which
manufacturers, distributors and other third parties would be
required to distribute or promote Windows technology exclusively.
This certainly seems like a fair resolution of the matter to me.
I hope that you can wrap up this case in the very near future.
The more time these companies spend in Court, the less time they
have to help the economy grow. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Pinion
2379 County Road 101
Bremen, AL 35033
MTC-00022468
From: Drake, Joshua
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the settlement should have an included a clause
dealing with Microsoft's exclusion of dual boot systems. In order
for competition to exist system retailers must be able to install,
and allow access to whatever software they choose. Microsoft's
exclusionary licensing agreements prevent alternative Operating
Systems from being useful to or even used by consumers.
Thank you,
Joshua Drake
MTC-00022469
From: Big Docs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Microsoft stockholder, and I am not in favor of the
proposed settlement with Microsoft. I don't believe that a
settlement as gentle as this is adequate to force Microsoft to
change its predatory business practices, to cause the industry to
determine that the punishment is suitable, or to cause consumer
sentiment to swing in the favor of Microsoft.
I want Microsoft to return to health, and this medicine is not
up to the task.
Mike Brant
Microsoft Stockholder
3431 Youngs Circle
San Jose, CA 95127
MTC-00022470
From: Li Jiang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Li Jiang
15360 NE 66th CT
Redmond, WA 98052
Jan 24, 2002
To whom it may concern,
I think the settlement between Microsoft and DOJ & 9 states
is reasonable and fair. Further litigation is not only costly to
government and Microsoft, it will also hurt the American economy,
computer industry and consumers ultimately.
Unfortunately a few of Microsoft's competitors have chosen to
use this lawsuit as their weapons against Microsoft in market place.
They really should concentrate on designing better products and win
the consumers through products not antitrust lawsuits.
As a consumer, I wholly support the settlement between Microsoft
and DOJ & 9 states. I think it is a very good thing for Amreican
economy, for computer industry and for all American consumers!
Sincerely yours,
Li Jiang
MTC-00022471
From: Jeff McCarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a US citizen, I am writing to express my displeasure at the
proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. The proposed
settlement allows many exclusionary practices to continue, and does
not take any direct measures to reduce the Applications
[[Page 27177]]
Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to the market.
Respectfully,
Jeff McCarty
27362 Strawberry Lane, Apt. 302
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
MTC-00022472
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:26pm
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,
SAMUEL SANTEUSANIO
136 LUSK AVENUE
HIGHSPIRE, PA 17034
MTC-00022473
From: Compaq User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:29pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft
Dear D.O.J.
Microsoft has made an offer you really should not refuse. This
company has done more for the Computer and software industry than
all others put together. Let's get on with other business". We
have a WAR to fight, now let's go win it......
Sincerely
Gail Radford
MTC-00022474
From: Ross Winn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30pm
Subject: Settlement
Ms. Hesse,
Please let me stress how very ill it makes me that the DOJ is
considering a settlement with the Microsoft corporation. Microsoft
has demonstrated an amazing disregard of both the letter and the
spirit of the law.
Comparing the computer industry to the automobile industry,
would it be fair for only one company to control 95% of the tire
industry, ot gasoline, or brakes? Without them the millions of us
who drive every day would cease.
This is exactly what working with a computer is like in 2001.
I implore you to not accept this or any "settlement"
that does not involve Microsoft admitting guilt, and provide for
monetary damages (cash) penalties of no less than 50% of their
profits for the entire length of their crimes.
I would urge instead the DOJ to dissolve the Microsoft
Corporation into no less than three (3) seperate corporations, and
divest of all non software related investments.
Thank you very much!
Ross Winn
3745 40th Lane South Apt 33A
Saint Petersnurg, FL 33711
727.866.0224
MTC-00022475
From: Don Beeth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I write in strong support of the Microsoft Settlement.
From the consumer's point of view, the details of a settlement
in the government's anti-trust action against Microsoft are less
important than that a settlement occur ASAP.
That said, having read the settlement, apart perhaps from the
difficulty of finding technically and experientially qualified
people who meet and/or will accept the limitations for service on
the Technical Committee, and that it does nothing to discourage the
hundreds of class action lawsuits spawned by this unfortunate
lawsuit, I found nothing that struck me as unacceptably offensive.
But regardless of what I may personally think of the provisions,
because the parties have agreed to the settlement, the important
thing now is to get it done quickly.
Thank you,
Donald R. Beeth, PhD
5303 Whittier Oaks
Friendswood, TX 77546
281-996-6030
MTC-00022476
From: Michael McConnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
The proposed settlement does not nearly go far enough. Microsoft
should be broken up into 3 separate but equal companies, each
selling, developing, supporting the same products. Just as the U.S.
DOJ decided over a century ago with the case against Standard Oil,
and the resulting act of Congress: The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
This way, Microsoft would have to compete against itself, and
competition among the
Microsoft spawn would open up its application programming
interface, offer its products at reasonable prices.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Sincerely,
Michael McConnell
4513 Belvidere Lane
Edina, MN 55435
MTC-00022477
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want to voice my objections about the Microsoft Settlement.
There are several parts that concern me, the biggest of which is
section III(J)(2) which will allow microsoft to kill most not-for-
profit software that needs to interoperate with their products.
Microsoft can not be allowed to set the standards to who has the
ability to license the API that they are using in the monopoly
product.
It is my opinion that this loophole would make microsoft even
more of a monopoly than they already are by giving them the ability
to exclude any compitition that they deem fit.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Jim Sheafer
41911 Raspberry Drive
Leesburg VA 20176
MTC-00022478
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:27pm
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,
Gale DeVoar SR
6214 Carew ST
Houston, TX 77074-7412
MTC-00022479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:26pm
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.
[[Page 27178]]
Sincerely,
Richard Kiser
2930 Hamilton Road
Cumming, GA 30041-7756
MTC-00022480
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a U.S. voting citizen and I want to add my commentary that
I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea and should be
reconsidered to be made more strict.
Julie Szekely
8201 Monona Ave.
Austin, TX 78717
MTC-00022481
From: James Thames
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am disappointed in the Proposed Final Judgment for the
following reasons.
Pursuit of those who willingly and knowingly violated Federal
Law will certainly avoid punishment and most likely retain their
respective positions in Microsoft. Worse yet they may even be
rewarded. In general I am not in favor of government intervention in
a free market economy. But in the case of MS gone awry, I believe
that corrective action in the form of a split should be considered.
The operating system as one company and the applications yet another
would be a good place to start.
Jim Thames
Senior Software Engineer
Westwave Communications
MTC-00022482
From: Stan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
The government doesn't allow privatization of roads and other
infrastructure elements because it allows a corporation to control
other like markets, like Ford Motors owning all of the freeways and
then creating some new "better tires" that work so much
better on their roads. This is no different than Microsoft. They own
and control the operating system infrastructure and then can provide
highly specialized software that locks in the customer. But worse,
software developers who are competing with Microsoft and also those
just developing on the Microsoft platform cannot compete because
Microsoft can obfuscate the behavior of the operating system and
services above it until they produce a competing product.
Does Microsoft add proprietary extensions to standards ? Yes.
(Kerberos)
Does Microsoft change their operating system behavior and does
not properly document it ? Yes. (Dr. Dos)
Does Microsoft keep data formats proprietary ? Yes (Microsoft
Word)
The solution is to split development of the operating system and
core pieces from application development. Development of the
operating and core pieces is then overseen by a government body.
Stan
MTC-00022483
From: Jacques Th(00E9)riault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
I think that the whole humanity should pool to build a starship
and put Microsoft assets, its officers and in particular all its
lawers and send them to the nearest black hole.
I think this is the only way we would be secure and not be
bullied around by this arogant entity.
Jacques Thiriault
MTC-00022484
From: Steve and Kathleen Herr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33pm
Subject: [email protected]
Leave Microsoft alone. Stop the witchhunt. Stop trying to punish
success. Let the free market operate as it should.
MTC-00022485
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30pm
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,
Rosemary McKinney
2040 Birchwood Lakes
Dingmans Ferry, PA 18328
MTC-00022486
From: Bill Garrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36pm
Subject: Comments
Dear Ms. Hesse,
Anyone who is intelligent enough to buy and operate a computer
is intelligent enough to learn that Netscape is available, as
"Opera", as well as others. My machines have all had
Internet Explorer on them, and I have used the system. I also use
"Opera" at the moment. Each has plusses and minuses. Let
everyone make a choice. I'm of the opinion that Mr. Gates and Co.
have gone far enough. It is time to leave them alone and move on to
more pressing business.
Best Regards,
Billy G. Garrett
MTC-00022487
From: Dave Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find it very interesting that you are suing Microsoft for
EXACTLY the same things that Apple (and many OTHER) system software
companies do ADD functionality, ADD EASE of use, and MAKE PROGRAMS
INTERGRATED with the system
I USE an Apple Macintosh PRIMARILY BECAUSE they (Apple) DO !!
ADD functions to the system (I use 9.1 but when I get a new iMac 2 !
then system X, I have used a MAC for more than 10 years, but PCs
from 1984?). The clock used to be a free program written by an
individual, NOW it is built-in, so are many other functions
INCLUDING a BROWSER speaking of which Netscape used to ADVERTISE
that THEIR browser was FREE !!! (and I NEVER EVER paid them one red
cent for using it either for Windows [yes I have Intel PCs too even
from the days of DOS 3.0 and 2.11]) or any of my 3 Macs. They GAVE
it [the browser] away for FREE "because the CONTENT Providers
had to BUY the programs to make the web pages and sites." AND
their browser was DIFFERENT from Mosiac AND Netscape's pages are NOT
always compatible with OTHER browsers, even though there is "A
standard".
The SAME goes for AVIs & Moovs graphic movies, MPeGs, jpg
GIFs (originally a PROPERARY format exclusive to AOL, but since put
in the Public Domain, so mow they have ART and it is ONLY
compatiable with AOL) or the sound clips. MS makes programs for Macs
(Macs BIGGEST supplier of programs and MS's MOST profitable and
Apple makes programs for Windows. I prefer the BUNDLED Apple
programs INCLUDING Quicktime, iDVD, iMovie etc (partly because I can
NOT afford some of the fancier programs, and the supplied ones meet
my needs [the features that I can uderstand and use]). YES I DO buy
shareware (and PAY the fees) and yes I have purchased MANY programs
totaling 1,000s of $$ over the years. But the Apple ones, the ones
that are TOTALLY intergrated with the system software work the BEST,
have the fewest problems and work just fine.
But I don't (currently) have an iPod nor a USE for one, nor a
PDA, web enabled phone. And I do NOT want an INTERNET ready
microwave, ice box, home lighting system, VCR (but I might have to
think about that one!).
I also noticed that AOL is suing MS AGAIN over the Browser...
sigh. Can we just get BACK TO NORMAL (quote by President Bush) and
get on with life ! instead of just wasting all this TIME, MONEY (yes
my TAX dollars too), etc.
My 2 cents.
Thank you
David Schultz
AMERICAN citizen
tax payer
MTC-00022488
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31pm
[[Page 27179]]
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,
Steven Marcuse
7001 Hardisty St.
Richland Hills, TX 76118-5146
MTC-00022489
From: David Greenblatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe, along with many many others that the settlement in
the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is unacceptable. It's a bad idea and
doesn't do anything besides give Microsoft a tiny scolding, and
ultimately enables them to become more embolden in their future
actions.
They do their best to make it difficult to use any software,
hardware or competitor to them's products intentionally, so that
you'll think competitors inferior, or just give up and accept what
you cannot change.
It's important you enable the change.
David Greenblatt
// dave.greenblatt
designer.digitas
v.617.867.1735
aim.daveg666
// progress = time*practice;
MTC-00022490
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: My comment on Microsoft.
Microsoft should have been split up. Throw the book at them. I
work in the industry. The more they are punished and watched, the
more the industry can innovate. MS stiffles anything not from
Microsoft. Happily, that joke of a settlement with the $1B
"donotation" was thrown out. It just shows that they'll
stop at nothing to extend their monopoly.
They should have been split.
David Parker
MTC-00022491
From: Nancy Childerston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I believe it is clearly in the best interests of our country for
this case to be settled as soon as possible. The proposed settlement
addresses all the issues, and it is a just conclusion to this
episode. Further litigation in this matter would require an
inappropriate use of the resources we need to deal with current
global matters.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to express my opinion.
Nancy J. Childerston
MTC-00022492
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33pm
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,
Carl Enterkin
1148 Waddington
Wichita, KS 67212
MTC-00022493
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33pm
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,
Jon Ohlhaver
3966 Union Springs Road
Stockbridge, GA 30281-5710
MTC-00022494
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please continue your pursuit of Microsoft for the antitrust
business practices for which they are clearly guilty.
No company who steals its technology while it lies, cheats and
robs its competitors should be allowed to commit such crimes without
being brought to justice.
Microsuck needs to be brought to its knees.
Sincerely,
Eric VanderWerff
615 N. O'Connor Rd.
Suite 12
Irving, TX 75061
MTC-00022495
From: taa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:35pm
Subject: DOJ's Abdication of power
To the Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly:
Please do something to preclude the current travesty of justice
that appears to be the result of heavy lobbying and campaign
contributions by Microsoft. The initial settlement agreed to by the
DOJ, that was wisely rejected wreaked of politics. How can the DOJ
justify spending MILLIONS of our tax dollars on rightfully expecting
Microsoft to abide by the previous agreement APPEARING to preclude a
continuation of the predatory and exclusionary practices used by the
Microsoft juggernaut. I have personally seen numerous companies who
Microsoft needed put out of business once the need was satisfied.
By not separating Microsoft's operating system group from the
application group you will allow the following practices to
continue:
Continued Elimination of Competition
1) by Microsoft's "breaking" other peoples software
via operating system changes.
a) In the days of DOS and the supremacy of Lotus 123 Microsoft
had the following jingle:
"DOS", [the operating system] is not done until
Lotus, [123 the application] won't run.
b) Generating false messages of incompatibility to scare
customers into using MS products.
2) Microsoft's current game with it's "Windows XP"
will be to preclude competition via forcing upgrades on MICROSOFT'S
timetable or else losing the license for which you've already PAID.
This will effectively prevent competitors from gaining
compatibility with the numerous Microsoft application files as
Microsoft will simply change the file formats with every release.
This will have the affect of preventing ANY non Microsoft
applications from gaining a foothold in companies due to not being
able to read, for example Microsoft CURRENT Word documents or Excel
files. FURTHER protecting their ACKNOWLEDGED and ILLEGALLY OBTAINED
MONOPOLY.
[[Page 27180]]
Respectfully Submitted,
Tim Anderson, President
T. Anderson Associates, Inc.
CC:[email protected],vice.president@w
hitehouse...
MTC-00022496
From: Cathy Meltzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FIN Action Alert: AOL TW-Back to the Future (Courtroom)
AgainJust voicing my support for the proposed settlement. It seems
fair, reasonable, and in the interests of the consumer (me).
MTC-00022497
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
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,
Raymond Hoefler
6674 Mauna Loa Blvd.
Sarasota, FL 34241
MTC-00022498
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
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,
Clay Pollat
1821 S. 17th St.
Laramie, WY 82070
MTC-00022499
From: GoodDoug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am concerned about the proposed final judgement being
considered in the case of United States v Microsoft. I want to relay
my opinion that the settlement is biased and not a true deterrent
for anti-competitive actions in the computer industry.
The courts have already decided that Microsoft has been using
undue influence to increase its strangle hold on the computer
industry. It has also shown that its anticompetitive practices are
detrimental to consumers. The final argument as to the effectiveness
of the proposed settlement is an issue of trust. Given the history
of Microsoft, particularly with regard to intentionally inserting
code to disable competing products, and others"
implementations of "open" standards such as Java and
SMB/CIFS. This issue is not addressed by the current proposal,
neither is the issue of enforcement. As it is currently written,
there is no real onus of responsibility implied, and the loose
structure of definitions such as "API" and
"Windows" allow for many loopholes and a lack of any
real impetus to follow the spirit of the settlement.
I urge that you reconsider the settlement and impose a stronger
one that will protect consumers and promote the evolution of the
computer software industry appropriately.
Thank you,
Doug Whitmore
(831) 239-1183
MTC-00022500
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36pm
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,
Jan Zimmerman
7500 Tottenham Place
New Albany, OH 43054-9444
MTC-00022501
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
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,
Irene J. Smith
4548 SE 96th Av
Portland, OR 97266-2638
MTC-00022502
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36pm
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,
Annette Huddleston
6908 Middle Cove Drive
Dallas, TX 75248-2912
MTC-00022503
From: R Welch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Why did the government waste all of that tax money on this case
if all they wanted was to let Microsoft continue in its monopolistic
way? This "settlement" is a farce and I consider it a
waste of my tax dollars. My vote will defiantly be heard on this
subject as anyone connected with this "settlement" will
not receive it.
[[Page 27181]]
R Welch
MTC-00022504
From: Dudley Irish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It is
so blatantly favorable to Microsoft that I can readily imagine it
being paid out of Microsoft's advertising budget. A few thousand
more children tricked into believing that MS Windows is the way
computers should work.
Further, I endose the opinions expressed in Dan Kegel's open
letter.
Dudley Irish
IT Consultant
Ars Magna, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00022505
From: mbutcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very disappointed in the proposed settlement with Microsoft
over their monopolistic behavior. It is safe to say that in the
technology sector, Microsoft is viewed as nothing short of a tyrant
doing it's best to eliminate all competition large and small through
unethical (and illegal) practices. Leveraging what amounts to a
stranglehold on the desktop operating sytems market, Microsoft has
sought to force usage (and hence licensing) of many of their other
products, including Internet Explorer, updated versions of the OS
(XP, Windows 200), Office, and Windows Media Player, to name a few.
The bottom line, for me, is that Microsoft is an anticompetitive
monopoly. They have proven time and again that they will not change
their practices of their own volition. They have proven time and
again that tehy will do what they want without regard to the
consumer (consider their new software, Passport, which makes my
personal information, including credit card numbers, available to
Microsoft at any time). Time and again they have proven to choose
profits over concerns of legality or ethics.
The "slap on the wrist" settlement proposed by the
DOJ does little to solve these problems I've highlighted. I believe
the proposal will allow Microsoft to continue in their current
practices unchecked. Toothless and ambiguous requeirements (consider
section III.A or II.F) are so easily sidestepped that it amazes me
that anyone even bothered to put pen to paper. Section H bears the
most remarkably ludicrous caveat that it renders the whole section
moot. Microsoft Middleware is not allowed to be "un-
deinstallable" unless competitors" products FAIL TO
IMPLEMENT a reasonible technical requirement? So, as long as IE
contains a component that is required by the IS or a Microsoft
server, IE may remain "un-deinstallable." Let me tell
you what the first things is that Microsoft will add to IE 6.1....
Besides, having patent, trade secret, and copyright protection over
those possible features is enough to ensure that no one else will be
able to implement those features. The settlement doesn't even seek
to discuss the other monopolistic practices of Microsoft, such as
including near-mandatory submission of personal data to Microsoft's
corporate servers for use by Microsoft. This information includes
credit card and other sensitive data, and Microsoft's
"secure" servers have already been hacked once by
external computer crackers.
I am disappointed in the decisions of the DOJ on this matter. As
a republican, I usually shy away from radical governement
intervention in corporate practices, but MS is an exception. I would
have preferred to see serious consequences to serious crimes.
M Butcher
[email protected]
MTC-00022506
From: Beckie Pack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:55pm
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,
Beckie Pack
MTC-00022507
From: Thomas McNeely
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is much
too weak. Microsoft proved with the consent decree from several
years ago that they are unwilling to change their ways, and that
they will find ways to circumvent behavioral remedies. The proposal
lacks a strong enforcement mechanism. It lets Microsoft off the hook
too easily for its many years of unrepentant malicious abuses.
Thanks for your attention,
Thomas McNeely
3140 Adams Ave., apt. C-304
Bellingham, WA 98225
MTC-00022508
From: David Speigel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42pm
Subject: Don't go soft on Microsoft
I wish to add my voice to the opinion that the remedy settlement
handed to Microsoft was far too weak. This settlement does not go
far enough in preventing Microsoft from continuing to illegally
dominate the software industry and squash true innovation from real
competition.
I read news every day of companies such as Kodak, RealNetworks,
and Lindows, and projects such as Kerberos, Wine, etc. that are
being unfairly abused by Microsoft. This has to stop. You have the
power to stop Microsoft. Please do something to help my industry.
David Speigel.
1670 Manning Ave. #202
Los Angeles, CA 90024
310-441-0200
MTC-00022509
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:39pm
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,
John D Goodwin
PO Box 71
Serafina, NM 87569-0071
MTC-00022510
From: Richard Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is hard for me to understand how anyone could question that
Microsoft has a Monopolistic hold on the computing industry. And
this is and continues to be a determent to computing, office
operations and the general growth of the industry.
Starting back with IBM's OS/2, a great operating system that
Microsoft put out of business by raising the licensing fees 700% at
a time that IBM was cooperating with MS to develop the joint OS.
Word perfect, a great word processor and Lotus123 and Quattro Pro,
great spread sheet products have been all but eliminated from the
desktop by (I suspect) MS coding that gives the MS office an
operational advantage. Email, Backup and fax programs have been
included in the MS product line and the competing products no longer
function very well. I wonder why? The browser war between MS and
Netscape
[[Page 27182]]
should have brought the trade regulators to their feet, where else
do we allow the competitors to dump product (Give it away at no
cost, or bundle it in) just to keep the competition from the market
they created. What about other Web products and why do we not have
some standards to design to that allow security and cross platform
operation, because MS has done all it could to keep it from
happening.
Then we have things like Java that was to be a standard in the
industry that would allow product to be coded for cross platform
operations and it was MS that did all they could to derail. To this
day, the potential of Java has been cut off by MS wanting to control
the makeup of the product such that it has far less potential in
today's computing arena.
The MS OS product continues to be released with bugs that do not
get fixed until MS comes back with the next great thing. The problem
is each new great OS comes with its own bugs and its own very
expensive price tag so we never have a stable or dependable OS. The
old Windows 95 had some updates and Windows 98 release 2 was some
what dependable if you will reboot it on a regular schedule like
daily and then completely reinstall it at least once a year, you can
keep it operating OK.
Why is it that all the new computers come with the latest MS
operating system? (Pre installed)
Where is the choice?
Is this not a monopoly?
How has it helped industry that needs basic computer operations?
The only real question is how do we fix it?
Please note. The above comments are my own personal thoughts and
observations.
Richard A. Davis
[email protected]
MTC-00022511
From: Geoff Hoyer
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed MS settlement is inadequate. Actions required of MS
do not sufficiently penalize them, nor do they mitigate the
problems. Too much of Windows is opaque to developers, inhibiting
non-MS applications from performing at a competitive level with MS
developed applications. To my mind, the linkage between OS and
Application development is too close.
Geoff Hoyer
Software Engineer
MTC-00022512
From: Jacques du Plessis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The term WINDOWS is not well defined. MS can easily circumvent
their obligations with technical loopholes. PLEASE address this
issue!!
Kind regards
Jacques du Plessis
Marketing Specialist
3GB Group
1750 Research Park
Logan UT 84341
Tel 435.797.4676
[email protected]
MTC-00022513
From: Rod Spears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42pm
Subject: There must be a Remedy
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am a software industry employee and I feel the "findings
of fact" in the case accurately describe Microsoft's behavior.
They are a monopoly and they will protect that monopoly at any cost.
Bill Gates talks about how almost any remedy will hurt their ability
to innovate. He really overuses that term and fails to understand
what that means. Microsoft's idea of innovation is to buy or
duplicate competitor's applications and add them to each new release
of Windows, thus extending their monopoly further. Bill also talks
about limiting choice, but that is Microsoft's sole purpose for
existence, is to limit the choice to just Microsoft products.
As a software developer, why I should try to develop new and
interesting applications on the Windows platform? If the idea has
any promise, I run the risk of Microsoft duplicating my idea in
their next version of Windows. The hard part of creating software
for the average user is quite often the marketing of it. Microsoft
has the best delivery mechanism in the world. They force PC
manufacturers to put it on every box they ship. Microsoft must be
stopped now, or in the future they will hold all the keys to
Internet and personal computing.
The "Proposed Final Judgment" will do little to curb
their behavior. If Microsoft negotiates a settlement, it is by
definition, in their best interest. A remedy needs to come from
courts.
Thank you,
Rod Spears
99 North Shore Drive
McCook Lake, SD 57049
MTC-00022514
From: Dale Mcgee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To All Involved:
Please do all in your power to settle the Microsoft case as soon
as possible. These court cases hurt the consumer and the economy.
This case is all about politics and has little to do about
competetion.
Please put the techs back to innovating and out of the court
rooms.
Thank You, Dale Mcgee
"An AOL stock holder and AOL,Microsoft user"
MTC-00022515
From: Barbara Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It would be helpful for the DOJ to begin looking out for the
welfare of the ordinary consumer. I consider myself to be one of
those. Supposedly, the DOJ is "protecting" us. But
Microsoft has been a leader in providing good, cheap technology to
the average consumer.. meanwhile boosting our economy, encouraging
competition and innovation.
It seems the DOJ is intent on running Microsoft out of the
country, by continuing to badger it to death. Would you rather it
relocate to China?
Now, the government-sanctioned monopoly of AOL wants to cause
even more trouble. Where is the DOJ when a true monopoly shows up?
Clapping its hands.
Surely, a plethora of lawyers see only $$$, with no sense of
fairness.
What ever happened to the idea of justice, fairness and
encouraging American business?
Please, stop harrassing Microsoft. You are making a travesty of
the law.
Barbara Smith Gilbert
Yakima, Washington
MTC-00022516
From: Dr. Jack Markuszka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:44pm
Subject: This is a travesty of justice
The absurd pronouncements of the DOJ (sic) in the Microsoft case
just re-enforces the belief that THIS DOJ is not interested in the
public welfare, but Corporate welfare John Markuszka
MTC-00022517
From: HENRY KIENZLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:44pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I SEE THAT AOL IS AGAIN TRYING TO STIFLE LEGAL COMPETITION FROM
MICROSOFT BY GOING TO COURT AGAIN. THIS STRIKES ME AS RIDICULOUS.
THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY HAS THRIVED UNDER COMPETITION, BUT THOSE WHO
CAN'T COMPETE SEEK TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE BY GOING TO COURT. THE
CONSUMER HAS BENEFITED FROM THIS COMPETITION. IF AOL'S BROWSER WAS
ANY BETTER THAN MICROSOFT'S, PEOPLE WOULD BUY IT, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT MICROSOFT DOESN'T CHARGE. IT SEEMS THAT AOL BOUGHT SUN
MICROSYSTEMS IN HOPES THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A SETTLEMENT
THROUGH COURT ACTION, SINCE THEY MUST SURELY HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME
THAT SUN WAS NOT COMPETITIVE. THEIR CASE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT OF
COURT.
MTC-00022518
From: Barkley Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think I may have written a volume or two on this subject in
commentary sent to publications, news sites and representatives. I
wish to clearly dictate the items of conduct most critically abused
by Microsoft and summarize each with a sentence of support.
Controlled OEM ISP Sales Distribution Channel Denied competition
capability to effectively distribute and therefore compete through
exclusionary (less costly product licenses and other favors for OEM/
ISPs who exclude competitors) practices with OEMs and ISPs Free the
OEMs and ISPs with lock and stock pricing models that can't be
[[Page 27183]]
manipulated at any point in the sales channel. Outlaw contracts that
dictate behavior, company practices or exclusion of competitors.
Directly dictated to industry competitors which products to end-of-
life (knifing the baby) and even which markets to exit (ex. Dodge to
Ford "get out of the auto business")
Apple and Netscape overshadowed a bumper crop of mostly medium
to large sized technology, media and software companies. MS browser
and email default on the MacOS platform and recollected business
conversations where MS suggested Netscape exit the Windows Web
Browser market at a time when NS held nearly 90% share of that
market. Two words: Moderate Regulation. This sort of conduct
dictates a minimum of two government agency industry monitors in my
opinion.
MS deliberate complete deflation of entire web browser
development industry through devaluation of browser Noble claims to
putting the customer first quickly fell away to internal
communications that proved that the decision to transition an entire
industry from one economic model to another was made primarily for
the purpose of destroying a competitor. There's nothing illegal
about what Microsoft did in this case. I just wanted you to ask
yourself "Would Henry Ford have cannibalized an entire
industry, risking the welfare of all those employed in it, simply to
reach a marketing goal?"
MS using the toolsets required by software developers (SDK) as
tools (carrots) to extort favor and pursue undue influence. Sabotage
was employed by MS engineers who delayed releases of SDKs and in
rare cases produced slightly doctored "toolsets" or
SDKs. MS competitors would receive the less favorable releases of
current toolsets than MS own software developers for specific
purpose of creating undue time-to-market advantages.
Open source, and freely distribute the SDK. Completely divide
the MS programmers who work on the software products from the
Windows OS developers. Release a universal SDK to MS software teams
and competitors at the same time preventing any undue time-to-market
advantages.
MS has acted all along as if they are the ones who will be
telling us what the truth is. I believe it is possible that they may
have deliberately hammed it up (Gates demeanor and courtroom antics
including doctored evidence) in order to elicit reaction from the
judge and later claim bias. In the current "post trial post
911" media spotlight, the MS propaganda, PR and PAC dollars
could add up and cause this case to disappear.
Please think of the internet development firms, software
development firms, digital device makers and computer manufacturers.
Should MS's power go unchecked, many industries that have flourished
during this trail will likely be muscled into compliance with MS
policy or be forced out of the industry. Since MS has come under
scrutiny, a more open free-market driven competitive landscape has
seen the birth of over a dozen new mainstream operating systems and
software niche markets (set-top boxes, digital video recorders,
browsers for game consoles, web enabled cell phones, PDAs etc
etc...) Had MS not been under the microscope, it is widely believed
that some if not all of these markets would have either been stunted
or overrun by MS, as other competitors and markets had been in the
past.
MTC-00022519
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:47pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft Alone
To whom it may concern,
Microsoft is one of the very few company producing high quality
software products. In fact they are one of the few company that
actually has great customer focus. AOL, Netscape could've competed
with Microsoft if they were technologically competent. But
unfortunately they lost to Microsoft's relentless pursue of
perfection, AOL , Netscape resorted to the means of Law. This kind
of action is not in line with Capitalism. Government should not get
so involved in a free market society.
Leave Microsoft Alone, they've done nothing wrong, AOL or Any
other company would've done exactly the same thing if they were
trying to be competitive.
Edward H.
MTC-00022520
From: Barbara Armijo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is an American asset!
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," states the AOCTP,
"not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever
seen."
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
Barbara Armijo
3315 28th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79410-3018
"[Leftists] love erasing the truth. They call their lies
"legally accurate," "affirmative action,"
"saving the Constitution"-and now,
"art'." -Ann Coulter
MTC-00022521
From: Daniel Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45pm
Subject: Curb the Microsoft Monopoly
Microsoft has abused its position as the largest player in the
industry to attack competitors with unfair and illegal tactics. They
must be punished.
Dan Walker
20999 McClung
Southfield, Mi 48075
MTC-00022522
From: Cano, Orlando
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:45pm
<>
Orlando Cano
Executive Legislative Assistant to
Democratic Speaker Frank Chopp
January 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Proposed Settlement Agreement in US v. Microsoft
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to
consumers. The provisions of the settlement will give consumers
greater choice when purchasing or upgrading computers and software.
Consumers can continue to expect quality new products from Microsoft
and can expect these products to work more easily with competitor's
software as well.
I support the Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys
General for their efforts to strike a balance between the interests
of Microsoft and its competitors by designing a settlement that is
in consumers" best interest.
Sincerely,
Frank Chopp
Speaker
Washington State House of Representatives
MTC-00022523
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This country needs to get this case settled. It has hurt the
economy. The only people interested in harming Microsoft are its
competitors. The everyday users of Microsoft products are more than
happy with the products and the price you pay for them. This suit
caused me, a 76 year old retired small business man, to lose many
dollars in my IRA from losses, not only in
Microsoft stock, but many other stocks. The action against
Microsoft precipitated the stock market crash and the recession the
country is now in.
J. Lansing Smith
4905 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403-1729 Email:
[email protected]
MTC-00022524
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:44pm
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
[[Page 27184]]
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,
Beatrice Gulnac
4761 Elmhurst Rd. West Palm Beach, FL 33417-5331
MTC-00022525
From: Miles Abernathy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Microsoft-DOJ Settlement
Hello!
I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft, with Microsoft
giving computers and software to schools, will be nothing but a
benefit to the company. It's like times of old when cigarette
manufacturers gave free smokes to soldiers...get them hooked and
you've got a customer for life. Given that Microsoft reportedly has
$36 billion in cash, I believe that any punishment against the
company should be levied in cash.
Miles Abernathy, [email protected]
MTC-00022526
From: Araemo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read through the propused settlement, and even on my
first read through I found several issues and loopholes, and while
reading other people's views, they have pointed out more serious
errors. I feel, amongh other things, that a "Windows-
compatible" operating system market could do wonders for the
PC industry. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement makes it more
difficult, by making some practices illegal, such as using MSDN
information to make a windows-compatible OS, and only requiring that
some of the necessary APIs be documented for developers.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the problems... The
proposed settlement also has no mention of Microsoft.net, or their
tablet PC, windows CE, and pocket PC products.
There is also no mention of microsoft's liscensing practices
with large users, such as corporations, schools, and government
agencies, unfortunately I do not know enough about this to site any
particular problems, but I'm sure many companies would be able to
explain the problem in great detail. A good essay siting many of the
problems with the settlement is available at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html Please reconsider the settlement, it is too
specific on what products are to be restricted... such as a
"MS internet explorer 7.0.0" would be completely free to
change APIs such that no competing products could interact with IE
or windows in the same way... without microsoft being required to
publish the API changes.
Thank you for reading this,
Nathan O'Meara
I have read through the proposed settlement, and even on my
first read through I found several issues and loopholes, and while
reading other people's views, they have pointed out more serious
errors. I feel, among other things, that a "Windows-
compatible" operating system market could do wonders for the
PC industry. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement makes it more
difficult, by making some practices illegal, such as using MSDN
information to make a windows-compatible OS, and only requiring that
some of the necessary APIs be documented for developers.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the problems... The
proposed settlement also has no mention of Microsoft.net, or their
tablet PC, windows CE, and pocket PC products.
There is also no mention of Microsoft's licensing practices with
large users, such as corporations, schools, and government agencies,
unfortunately I do not know enough about this to site any particular
problems, but I'm sure many companies would be able to explain the
problem in great detail. A good essay siting many of the problems
with the settlement is available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html Please reconsider the settlement, it is too specific on
what products are to be restricted... such as a "MS internet
explorer 7.0.0" would be completely free to change APIs such
that no competing products could interact with IE or windows in the
same way... without Microsoft being required to publish the API
changes.
Thank you for reading this,
Nathan O'Meara
MTC-00022527
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:43pm
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,
Cleo Brewer
9477 W Mirror Rd
Columbus, IN 47201-9107
MTC-00022528
From: steve kolb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a Macintosh professional since 1984. In those years,
supporting large numbers of individual and state government users, I
have observed an erosion of market share by Mac users and wholesale
shift away from the Macintosh Operating System in favor of the
"market leader," Microsoft Windows. In 1995, Information
Technology decision makers at the California Department of
Corrections established a no compromise policy to dump all Apple-
based computers and replace them with Windows OS computers, even
though a number of organizations within that large organizations
were perfectly happy and productive using Macs.
The same thing happened again at the California Department of
Transportation, where engineers, graphic artists, trainers, labor
relations staff and other assorted professionals were told to spend
tens of thousands of dollars to purchase new Windows2000 Pro-based
PCs and get rid of their Macs because the Department's IT division
wanted a single standard for servers, workstations, and portables.
The computers that were replaced included first and second
generation Power Macintosh G4 computers with enough power and
capability to run circles around the brand new HP Vectra computers
that were bought as replacements.
The argument from IT has continued to be in favor of a single
Operating System that they can control and, in theory, service.
However, the PCs running various versions of Windows (NT, 3.5, 2000)
require far more support and are less reliable than the Macs they
replaced.
All of this comes as a result of the band-wagon mentality of
managers who have been convinced that the one with the most marbles
wins and everyone else has to quit the game. Quitting the game for
the Mac OS has been very difficult and stressful for users and
professionals who support them. And the costs in terms of
productivity and worker satisfaction have been great.
The pressure from Microsoft on large institutional installations
to maintain only one way of doing things has yielded additional
fallout. People who are forced to use Windows-based computers at
work, seem to find it less compelling to keep their Macs at home and
when it comes time to buy a new computer at home, too often yield
and buy a low-cost PC with Windows preinstalled to maintain the
illusion of compatibility between work and home.
Any settlement that does not hit Microsoft in the pocketbook
very hard and in their business model that has had such a widespread
and insidious anti-competitive effect is certainly not in the public
interest. If monopolistic practices is what they have been convicted
of, then any settlement must include remedies that not only
disintegrate their defacto monopoly, but also inhibit its continued
growth and future effect in the personal computer and workstation
market.
Respectfully Submitted
Stephen L. Kolb
Sacramento, California
MTC-00022529
From: Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
[[Page 27185]]
Microsoft should not be allowed to dump its inferior products on
our children. I believe any settlement should be in cash and
criminal charges where applicable. At the same time, however, I do
not feel that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Spencer J. Stang, Ph.D.
MTC-00022530
From: Allen Stajkowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51pm
Subject: About Microsoft Antitrust Settlement...
Dear Reader;
I have one question to you. Microsoft has been found guilty of
anti-competitive practices via a monopoly. Why then is the
settlement allowing Microsoft to further this monopoly by forcing
their products upon the students? This gives Microsoft implicit
advertising as well as a captive customer base for very little
money.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Concerned Citizen
MTC-00022531
From: Kristen Langley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Good day:
I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to
support a settlement of the anti-trust activity taken against the
Microsoft. I have no financial interest in the decision. I am
neither an employee or contractor of the corporation, nor, do I (nor
any member of my family) own stock in the corporation.
I am, however, a citizen. I believe that this pursuit of the
corporation has-frankly-reached a point where animus and
a socialistic "force Bill Gates to share his wealth"
financial gain is the motivation. In the latter, I would cite the
experience with the tobacco settlements. The Attorneys General
talked, ad naseum, about the money going for
"prevention" and "treatment" and
"health care" that would come from these monopolistic
purveyors of death and disease. Noble, noble motives! What happened?
Some of the funds did go to programs and education, but most went
into State general funds and used to fill general fund shortfalls.
The money has been [mis]spent in lieu of general tax revenue, and
the intended recipient programs/ actions are left
underfunded-a "liability" on the books that we
will be asked to pay for, again, later.
To quote a fitness guru, it's time to "STOP THE
MADNESS". If Mr. Gates builds a better mousetrap, then let him
benefit from it. If some of Mr. Gates" competitors can't stand
that, let them build a better operating system instead of using the
authority and resources of the United States, and
"united" [small "u"-i.e. the
aggregation of states" Attorney's General) States to
substitute for their second-rate and second-rate-popularity product.
If Mr. Gates has pushed past reasonable bounds, then penalize him,
and move on to more critical issues.
Kristen Langley
MTC-00022532
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Move onto putting illegal aliens, terrorists,
and real criminals in prison. Remember when DOS was the operating
system for personal computers? Nobody but Microsoft moved us past
those days. Tell the cry babies to produce software that people will
buy. Seems like you guys are being used as a tool to destroy one of
the most successful AMERICAN companies EVER!!!! As a United States
citizen, Microsoft user and owner of Microsoft stock, I am ashamed
that you are allowing a bunch of sore losers use the United States
Justice Department to destroy innovation. Why don't you tell the
jerks to go out and try to beat Microsoft in the marketplace. After
all, never has any value been created by a bunch of lawyers in a
courtroom. Thank You.
Mark Bailey
MTC-00022533
From: Bill Wu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello Renata,
I am a software engineer and I am using various kind of software
for 20 years. I like Microsoft's software and I feel that Microsoft
really helped consumers like me to provide a comprehensive software
package with reasonable price.
Microsoft acquired market fairly through technology inovation.
We shouldn't punish a good company just because they are rich. AOL
shouldn't join the game so late if they feel that they have a good
point. AOL's motivation is very questionable in my point of view.
Regards,
Bill Wu
MTC-00022534
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45pm
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 Catherine Sears
P.O.Box 2112
Cave Junction, OR 97523
MTC-00022535
From: Jason Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ATTN: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, US DOJ
Dear Ms Hesse, and any others whom it may concern,
I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. It
is my individual opinion that the proposed Microsoft settlement does
not adequately protect consumers (such as myself) from the effects
of further anti-competitive practices. I believe the PFJ as
currently written lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
Sincerely,
Jason Cook
Oakland, California
MTC-00022536
From: Paul Gessing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a private U.S. citizen who has no direct interest in the
Microsoft Antitrust Case, I urge you to find that the current
settlement is indeed in the public interest. The Tunney Review phase
should be the among the final steps taken in this drawn out process
that has hard consumers, Microsoft shareholders, and the objectivity
of the federal and state goverments. Please end this matter and
approve the settlement in the final report and recommendation to the
court.
Thank you,
Paul J. Gessing
4839 W. Braddock Road, #203
Alexandria, VA 22311
MTC-00022537
From: Shea Lovan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48pm
Subject: Regarding the proposed settlement
As an systems administrator and software designer, I have
followed the development of the information technology industry
since the early 1990's; my profession requires it. The one thing
that strikes me is that, as a consumer, I have *never* chosen a
Microsoft product based on technical merits. In 1994, I commented to
a colleague that, "I use Microsoft applications for the same
reason I obey the law of gravity. I have no choice." Instead,
I have been backed into corners by Microsoft's licensing agreements
with hardware vendors. At first (around 1993) the mediocre Word,
Excel, and Access products were preloaded on newly purchased
computers. Vendors would not remove the software and reduce the
price to make it reasonable to purchase better, competing products
(WordPerfect, Quattro, and Paradox). Their reason was that their
agreement with Microsoft prevented it. Next, it was the debacle of
Internet Explorer marginalizing Netscape Navigator. Later it there
was the battle with Sun Microsystems over the Java programming
language. Most recently, there is the incorporation of the Microsoft
Media Player and Outlook Express into the operating system. In each
of these cases, Microsoft's vaunted "ability to
[[Page 27186]]
innovate" was lacking; these were poorly-written, knockoff
products fighting for marketshare at the OEM licensing level.
While these issues were being debated, even more insidious
things were happening. Sybase (a database application company) was
nearly destroyed after a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft
expired. Microsoft had learned what was necessary to create
Microsoft SQL. There was the Microsoft's attempt to purchase Intuit
(fortunately, this was halted by the Department of Justice) to
consolidate control of the personal finance application market.
Finally, there were all of the product press releases that were
issued just to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the
marketplace over purchasing software in segments which Microsoft had
little or no experience (yet). None of these issues would have even
arisen if not for the vast wealth Microsoft accumulated through its
monopoly of desktop operating systems and arguable monopoly of
office productivity suites.
Finally, we come to the futility of the proposed settlement. I
find it hard to believe that anything Microsoft would agree to will
be in the public interest. I had hopes for the consent decree agreed
to in 1994. However, Microsoft vitiated that document within months
even though it was relatively mild. Now, the situation is much
graver. In 1994, Microsoft was not even a player in server operating
systems. Since 1996, the corporation has successfully exploited its
desktop monopoly and made Windows NT and Windows 2000 into widely
deployed, server operating systems. The potential for abuse is
higher now than at any earlier time.
When reading proposed remedies over the last few years, I
actually thought that a breakup was the best from a consumer
standpoint. However, I thought the proposed divisions were poor. For
any remedy to be successful, I think it should satisfy the
following:
-Network services should be developed by a separate
organization than the operating system. For example, Microsoft SQL,
SNA Server, and Internet Information Services should not be bundled
into the operating system; competition suffers in that case.
-The unit developing applications (such as the Microsoft
Office package or Internet Explorer) should not have access to any
unpublished operating system information. All the programming
interfaces (APIs) should be available to anyone developing software
for that platform.
-Microsoft should be prevented from preannouncing products; it
causes useful products to never make it to market for fear of being
steamrolled. This restriction was, to my mind, a critical piece of
the remedy in the IBM anti-trust case.
-Microsoft should have a period in which each product is
licensed to OEM's separately. The damage is already done by the
agreements made to promote Office by reducing Windows license fees,
but the tactic would work again.
-The Findings of Fact must stand. Microsoft has been found
guilty of violating the law. People and companies damaged by their
actions should be able to recover damages without reproving that
Microsoft is a predatory monopoly.
A breakup may not be necessary to affect these changes, but it
seems likely. In summary, I simply do not believe that the proposed
settlement is satisfactory. It does little to curb current predatory
practices and less to prevent creative minds from developing new
ones within a few months. Any remedy should guard against future
abuses and must preserve Microsoft's ability to innovate, but should
force it to be at a level other than end-user licensing.
Sincerely yours,
Shea A. Lovan
2118 Mountain Ave.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
[email protected]
805.895.7979
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022538
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48pm
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,
debbie janda
3365 green valley rd
cibolo, TX 78108
MTC-00022539
From: John Sheppard
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is not as good as it could be. Please
consider other alternatives presented to you. The Wine project for
example. Thanks.
John Sheppard
Customer Service Manager
Corbis Corporation
15395 SE 30th Place
Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98007
(425) 401-4008
MTC-00022540
From: Rob Hutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is there any question that Microsoft has violated anti-trust
laws? When you look at the market, the answer is clearly no. When
the only viable alternative to a product is something that the
manufacturer cannot buy or control, then there are obvious
anticompetative practices taking place. Our free market system
encourages competition, and when there is none, then something is
preventing it.
Let's take for instance, the constitution. While it is the basis
for our system of government and law such as, it would be impossible
to successfully argue a court cased based solely on it without
referencing case precident, other laws, or previous findings of the
court.
Microsoft has done just that. They have built a foundation,
written the laws, and decided the cases, yet all that they have
provided is the constitution. And when someone else does write a
successful breif, they buy it, steal it, or offer their law services
at such a reduced rate that that noone buys the other guy's
services. They have said, sure, you can offer legal advise, but
we're going to do it cheaper until we run you out of business, and
if you are still around, once we have devalued your services, then
we will buy you out.
Now, I certainly do not think that the consumer market is not
stupid. Eventually there will be a backlash and all of the
foolishness will end, but in an economy that is so dependent on
technology, not acting on something that stifles innovation, and
prevents competition at the earliest possible point is
irresponsible. The governement should not be the watchdog policeing
every action, but should insure that there are not practices
preventing innovation, competition, and free trade, and in this
case, there have clearly been all three.
Now, what to do. There are clearly two parts of Microsoft's
offerings. There is the operating system, and the apps that run on
it. There are the underlying programs and the things that present
them to you, and then the things that use those to provide services.
I could care less if the operating system is presented through a
web browser or a custom application, but there is clearly a
difference between allowing access to files and application
installed on a computer, and providing the files and applications.
There is a clear difference between the graphical interface and a
database engine or web server that runs on top of the OS.
So, I would break Microsoft into an applications company and and
OS company. The rules governing transfer of information between the
two would specify that the info would be available to any company
under similar terms and conditions and reveiwable at any time by an
outside body. No financial penalties, just let the market do what it
was assigned to do. Level the playing field, and let fair
competition decide who the winner is.
Thanks for your time,
Rob Hutton
Security Engineer
eCommSecurity, Inc.
(877) 4-HACKED
www.ecommsecurity.com
MTC-00022541
From: Carl A. Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:57pm
[[Page 27187]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
I want you to know that to allow the settlement in its present
form, is an egregious disservice to the public. Microsoft has
viciously shut down all of its relevent competitors, and will
continue to do so until we have a disaster.
One company should not be allowed to control all of our computer
software. I'm asking that you not approve this settlement for the
sake of our futures.
Carl Cook
MTC-00022542
From: Bowers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement-Benifits vs.damage
I as a small business owner feel that I am directly responsible
for the Microsoft Antitrust problem. I was an early adopter of the
total Microsoft systems. This was done because trying to use and/or
coordinate the various software programs was costing me tens of
thousands of dollars a year.
BENEFITS
1) Most importantly, networking with the greatest number of
customers, clients, associates, suppliers, government etc. etc., was
the driving force and my greatest benefit. Once I made my software
decision, as a consumer, I and those around me (not Microsoft) drove
or caused the total use of Microsoft software.
2) I demanded compatibility in software. I was wasting at least
$10k yearly getting all the various software/hardware to just work.
A Microsoft choice with it's system wide compatibility was what
solved my basic problems and increased my productivity by at least
200%. Yes, there were nice but seldom used features else where, but
they provided no foundation, financial stability or guarantee of
continued existence.
3) I required anyone doing work with me to be Intel PC
compatible using Windows. This was one of the best business
decisions I made. I and others did not have time for the loss of
trying to get various systems and software to work. We all wanted to
communicate quickly and accurately. It took about two years to
standardize on Microsoft and AutoCAD.
DAMAGES If I'm to believe the settlement reports, there might be
a $10 to $20 per machine "damage" to me the consumer. I
say, balance this "damage" against the tremendous gains
the use of Microsoft products gave me: At least a 200% gain in
productivity/profitability; Elimination of yearly computer software
maintenance costs; Enormous gains in quality and speed of service to
my clients via networking;
And finally opening up of the internet to standardization and a
vast array internet data, research, and business.
In summary, I and the rest of the world will be better off for
having this anti-trust suit settled. It has the beneficial effect of
declaring Windows the winner, allowing new features to be added, and
placing the operating system with a company that has demonstrated
the ability to keep the system coordinated.
Microsoft is a monopoly because most of us have chosen to use
it, and have required those who do business with us to be
compatible. It allows the specialty and /or hobby systems to
continue in their efforts and allows business to continue the
serious business of networking all aspects of commerce.
MTC-00022543
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse: As for myself, I am very grateful that
some of the states are not going along with letting Microsoft
continue to be a harmful and predatory monopoly. I fervently hope
that because some of the states will not roll over, the whole
"deal" with Microsoft will unravel.
I feel that the US Justice Department did our country harm when
the let Microsoft walk away. Even their give away benefits them. As
a very computer literate individual I see letting them even stay
together as a single business entity as something that will repress
the open market and harm the development of new technology. New
technology for which each of us wouldn't have to pay for again every
two year with Microsoft's forced upgrades.
It is a farce that Microsoft will hide it's Internet Explorer
icon from the desktop. Internally they still have the advantage over
all other vendors that will have to use their desktop software: NT,
Windows 2000, etc. Because of their intentional and illegal harm to
their competitors, we the computer users have lost the choice of
what vendors we can choose.
I see no difference between Microsoft and AT&T, before Judge
Green and the Justice Department forced the break up of AT&T .
It is a travesty of justice that harms all of us in the United
States now and in the future.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Don Lewis
7025 E. Townsend Dr
Highlands Ranch, CO 80130
MTC-00022544
From: Dick and Judy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
Attached is a letter expressing my opinions about the Microsoft
Settlement. Please give it your consideration. Thank You,
Richard Englund
MTC-00022544 0001
9303 Sunset Way
Bellevue, WA 98004
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
After following the political grandstanding for over three years
now, I ask that the government accept the settlement deal with
Microsoft and move on to more important business. Microsoft's
existence has, without question, provided more benefit than harm in
the world and should be rewarded with this compromise.
The decision by Judge Jackson was over the line and showed a
lack of understanding of the technology industry. This is not a time
for bringing down the big guy, as the court-mediated settlement is
more than generous, even exceeding some government demands.
Competitors will have unprecedented access to Windows internal
source code and be able to license intellectual property, while
computer manufacturers will have near-free reign to alternate
Microsoft and non- Microsoft software without a cost.
This capitulation will do more than necessary to revive the
competition and should more than suffice when the final judgment is
made. Please take the reasonable course and keep this company
together, as any further disruption would only hurt everyone
involved.
Sincerely,
Richard Englund
00022544_0002
MTC-00022545
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56pm
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,
Carl Ross
43886 Butternut Dr. Temecula, CA 92592-3037
MTC-00022546
From: Richard Lodwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:59pm
Subject: Anti-trust charges
I think this witch hunt should be ended. Microsoft has done
nothing but help the general public and the fact they have made a
lot of money in the process testifies to the American way.
Richard Lodwick
MTC-00022547
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon?= Wium Lie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:58pm
Subject: Comment
[[Page 27188]]
As the CTO of a company that makes browsers in competition with
Microsoft, I've very disappointed with the proposed settlement. It
will cement Microsoft's monopoly and turn the free internet into
"Microsoft Plaza". Please, don't let Microsoft get away
this easily.
-h&kon
H?kon Wium Lie
cto ?e(R)�
[email protected] http://people.opera.com/howcome
MTC-00022548
From: David Fisher
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No to Microsoft!!!!!!
MTC-00022549
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please break MICROSOFT into at least four seperate companies.
MICROSOFT in it's present configuration is a cancer growing on the
body politic.
Sincerely,
Charles Clark
1650 Valencia
Las Cruces, NM 88001
MTC-00022550
From: David L. Sall, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft
Enough!
Please!
Stop prosecuting Microsoft!
Respect for government is low enough already.
David L. Sall, MD Jacksonville, FL
MTC-00022551
From: K Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Remedy
I've heard that Microsoft is planning to "donate"
Microsoft products as part of their remedy. As this is planned to go
to schools, I think a better idea is cash, so the school can choose
their own technology. I've also heard that Microsoft donates large
amounts of Microsoft products to schools-somehow this seems to
be locking them in the market again, while avoiding cries of
antitrust. I think Microsoft should truly be punished, and let's
leave the politics out.
Regards,
Katherine Brooks
MTC-00022552
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56pm
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 Clark
4648 Pontchartrain Drive
Unit I
Slidell, LA 70458
MTC-00022553
From: Carole Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge:
I wish to express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgement
which would give Microsoft complete control over the Windows system.
The principles of "fair play," if that term can be
applied to business, require that healthy competition in industry be
allowed. How can we even think of outlawing that? I believe that
Microsoft has violated antitrust laws time and time again, and now
wish to be rewarded for that instead of punished.
That doesn't seem right to me! Does it to you? Please don't fail
to make the most just ruling in this important case.
Carole Kleinknecht
212-494-0321
MTC-00022554
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:58pm
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,
Charmane Willis
11322 Hwy 421 N
Milton, KY 40045
MTC-00022555
From: Don Albrecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's arrogance is ultimately a threat to our national
security. The rest of the world won't put up with it's business
practice forever and we as a country and economy WILL pay for it
some day.
Don Albrecht
MTC-00022556
From: Pete Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Canadian, I'm not sure if my input counts. However, I want
to stress the importance of this settlement as it has global
economic implications. Microsoft has a global monopoly on the
desktop operating system market, so whatever decisions they make, it
affects me as well. Netscape was my primary browser until Internet
Explorer became so widespread that it became impossible to ignore.
Then of course, when I bought Windows 98 (Second Edition), it came
-with- Internet Explorer. I didn't have a choice to buy
it without Internet Explorer. So now I was faced with this decision:
download and install Netscape and have two browsers on my system,
with one just taking up unnecessary space, or just forget about
Netscape and use IE instead.
In my case, Netscape never stood a chance. I simply couldn't be
bothered to install extra software for no real gain other than to
simply say, "Ha ha! I'm using Netscape even if it means taking
up extra space!" Microsoft basically made my decision for me.
I believe this is true for millions of other users. Yes, I
-do- have the option of downloading and installing
Netscape, but since you can't uninstall Internet Explorer, that
choice is only an illusion.
I believe that Netscape was significantly harmed, and lost so
much money that they had no choice but to allow themselves to be
bought out by America Online.
Reviewing the settlement proposal, I consider it to be nothing
more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. What exactly is
Microsoft supposed to learn from this settlement? Just throw money
around until they get a settlement that they like? What lessons are
they supposed to learn? Now with the release of Windows XP, I'm
seeing more and more integration happening. MSN is now a part of the
operating system (putting ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo! Chat at a
disadvantage). Windows Media Player can play MP3 songs (putting
Nullsoft's WinAMP at a disadvantage). Windows XP has many
"reminders" that you should sign up for the Passport
service. Then, of course, there's Licensing 6.0-buy the
Enterprise edition, and you get the cheapest subscription
fees-provided you use ONLY Microsoft products and nothing
else. Don't buy it, and you're threatened with the fact that you'll
end up paying millions of extra dollars down the road (if you're a
business).
All this is happening right now. Microsoft has not learned
anything from the trials.
[[Page 27189]]
Microsoft has consistently shown nothing but contempt for the trial
process.
So, for the sake of the global economy, I urge that you
reconsider this settlement and come up with a harsher one.
Regards,
Peter L. Thompson
215-1323 W. 71st Ave
Vancouver, BC
Canada
MTC-00022557
From: John Gilchrist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:02pm
Subject: The proposed DOJ & Microsoft settlement
Dear Court,
The proposed DOJ & Microsoft settlement is neither a
punishment to Microsoft nor a remedy for their proven wrong doings.
Microsoft is clearly an unrepentant monopolist and must be forcibly
punished and a true remedy (like company breakup) applied. Further,
Microsoft, through their monopolistic powers and and lax attitude
about computing security (all those internet viruses and worms are
directly targeted at the known security vulnerabilities of the
ubiquitous Microsoft Office, Email, Web Server and Networking/OS
products), are putting our national physical and economic security
at risk in a manner unfathomable just ten years ago. We must act now
to put Microsoft back in the place of a lawful and safe corporate
citizen since they are obviously unwilling to police themselves.
Sincerely,
John Gilchrist
MTC-00022558
From: Michael Haag
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: not only should the settlement proceed
without further action against Microsoft, the antitrust suit should
not have been filed in the first place.
A permanent monopoly, in the absence of coercion, can not exist.
The suit is without merit, and is the result of jealous competitors
and a grandstanding and meddlesome government.
sincerely,
-michael haag
70 Leonard St.
Malden, MA 02148
MTC-00022559
From: Gene Elder
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Gene Elder. I disagree with the current proposed
settlement issued from Microsoft in its present form. That proposal
being the contribution of 60% software, 20% refurbished wintel
computers and 20% cash to underprivileged schools (as is my current
understanding). This is totally unacceptable seeing as it will only
ENCOURAGE Microsoft in monopoly practices. First: the production of
software is relatively cheap, even when you include the time for
development, the marketing and paying the programmers, Microsoft
will only pay a small fraction of the total amount they themselves
suggest their software's really worth. Second: The purchasing of
refurbished computers will be Microsoft's choice of platform. This
platform will have to run Microsoft software and thus propagating
Microsoft's stranglehold on another market that the currently dont
dominate in, so they will only be strengthening their monopolistic
position. Third: the suggestion of 20% cash seems to me to be
totally inadequate in the extreme. They should have to pay the full
amount in cash and let the schools decide what is best for their
technological solutions, that decision belongs to the schools and
NOT Microsoft.
I also thing that a breakup into two mini-softs, one for OS,
another for applications, may be a good idea, since Microsoft as a
combined entity has put to death many good companies that I have no
doubt would still be around and thriving were it not for Microsoft
buying them out, or taking their market out from underneath them
entirely, with force or subversion. Our economy survives on
competition and choice, and Microsoft has proven over and over that
they do not believe in fair practices involving healthy competition.
I will not claim to be able to suggest an appropriate
conclusion, I will leave that to the courts and the honorable judges
the preside over said courts. But I must beg that you reconsider
accepting ANY resolutions proposed by Microsoft themselves, I don't
believe that they have the ability to act fairly in any business
dealing. Please make a decision that is fair and unbiased. Let
justice prevail in this case, and not money, because Microsoft has
so often let their money buy their justice. Please let my faith in
true justice prevail.
Gene Elder
MTC-00022560
From: ROBERT H BARGE JR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
A decision in favor of M'soft is wanted by a large majority of
Americans. There is no proof of damage to anyone!!!!!
R.H.Barge,
Arcadia, CA.
MTC-00022561
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Guillaume Marceau
Date: 1/24/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to state my opinion as a programmer that the
proposed judgement in the Microsoft anti-trust case is far too weak
with respect to opening up the field for developers of inter-
operable systems (e.g. the Wine project).
To break down the entry barriers, all Microsoft specs, including
APIs and file formats, current and future, must be freely available
to developers. There can only be a free market in today's computing
world in an environment where components from disparate sources can
be made to interoperate; otherwise there remains a form of mutual
exclusion in terms of what runs on a given computer system. Only
across the board, enforced openness of specs can enable a real free
market by breaking this chain.
Will Renner
Computer Engineer
MTC-00022562
From: JONES,PETER (HP-NewZealand,ex1)
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
In my twenty years in the IT industry I have witnessed a slow
erosion of consumer choice, fair competition in the development of
products and services for consumers in the PC industry and the
growth of an insidious monopoly on the desktop.
The US Department of Justice has squandered an opportunity to
return choice, flexibility and innovation to the consumer by,
instead, pandering to Microsoft demands in the face of overwhelming
evidence of unfair practice in the marketplace.
I, for one, am disappointed.
Peter Jones,
Technical Account Manager
Hewlett-Packard (NZ) Ltd.
DDI:+64 4 802 8957
Mobile:+64 21 452 994
Email:[email protected]
MTC-00022563
From: Thomas Donalek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed settlement.
I believe that the proposed settlement is an inadequate remedy
to the harm caused by Microsoft's illegal actions. Also, I believe
that the proposed settlement is not adequate to prevent or even
discourage Microsoft from continuing to abuse their still-present
monopoly position in several critical markets. I believe that the
culture at Microsoft is such that they do not believe that they have
done harm, and thus they will continue to behave in the same manner.
It is in the best interest of US business and consumers to
impose a far stronger sanction that would first, adequately punish
Microsoft for the harm they have caused through their illegal
actions, second, alter the situation so as to signifigantly reduce
their illegally gained monopolies and third, monitor and strongly
punish Microsoft for all their future transgressions.
Lastly, the clear inadequacy of the proposed settlement leads to
an appearance of impropriety between Micrsoft and the Ashcroft/Bush
DoJ which weakens the democratic institutions of our great nation.
Thank you,
Thomas Donalek
MTC-00022564
From: Jean-Marc Chevrot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the comments made in the web page below.. http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Jean-Marc Chevrot
[[Page 27190]]
MTC-00022565
From: Mark Matarrese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
To the Department of Justice;
As a concerned consumer and IT professional, I regret to see the
latest actions that AOL has directed towards Microsoft; the recent
lawsuit filing for anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has
CONSISTENTLY met the demands of business and personal users of their
software and by no stretch of any imagination have damage the
environment of competition and innovation. If the Suns, Oracles, and
Netscape's are unhappy with Microsoft's operating systems and
affiliated suites, please pressure them to following the road of
innovation to create a system of operating and suite software that
competes against their rivals. That is CAPITALISM!! By asking the
government to compensate one for inferior software that was unable
to offer the user an experience beyond the competitor's expertise is
totally ludicrous. Please listen to the real people like myself that
must make a living on software that is designed to meet the demands
of the consumer-simplicity and ease of operation. What is
wrong with making a product better? Is bundling an antitrust issue,
a scheme to allow for anti- competitiveness, or a process to make
superior software that increases the users positive experience, thus
allowing for greater productivity?
We need to allow our country's great companies to become even
greater. By restricting a company's ability to innovate through
malicious acts of jealousy from their competitors is not how we have
become such a great nation. May we never forget how we got where we
are today!
Very Truly Yours,
Mark Matarrese
An Independent IT Professional
MTC-00022566
From: marv matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
To: Department of Justice
(Microsoft Settlement)
I am outraged at AOL Time Warner for suing Microsoft because
they purchased an inferior system and find it cannot perform on a
standard with Microsoft equipment. Innovate not Litigate should be
their guidance. Microsoft leads our nation and the world and is not
appreciated by the Justice Department that continues to honor
groundless and frivolous claims of competing companies, and Attorney
Generals of states trying to improperly help and prop up weaker
companies domiciled in their states.
We once held AOL stock but sold it due to the embarrassment of
hearing complaints from friends and workers who had AOL as their
Internet provider. AOL puts cookies, stops, blockages and all number
of impediments in their system to block or diminish competitors from
gaining access to AOL customers. People who quit AOL must have their
computers professionally purged of these illegal roadblocks at
considerable expense to the customer. Dismiss the suit against
Microsoft as frivolous and without merit and direct your attention
to AOL's un ethical practices.
Marvin L Matson
Tacoma WA
MTC-00022567
From: Mike Rutter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
My name is Michael Rutter, and I am a computing professional. I
have been keeping a close eye on the Microsoft case, and I have read
the proposed settlement with Microsoft, and I feel that it is
inadequate. Not only does it not fully address the problem, but it
is so full of loopholes that I sincerely doubt that Microsoft would
suffer any effect from it. Please do not let this settlement go
through. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael Rutter
CDM Technologies
MTC-00022568
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:01pm
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,
Manuel Lemos
2022 Lone Oak Ave.
Napa, CA 94558
MTC-00022569
From: RM Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the currently proposed settlement is flawed in a
fundamental way. Namely, it does not prevent Microsoft from bundling
web browsers and other application software into its operating
system. While there are measures in place to discourage this kind of
practice, the settlement as written does not take adequate steps to
ensure that this practice will absolutely cease. Any just and
reasonable settlement to this lawsuit must address the prevention of
future attempt to bundle software into Microsoft operating systems.
Raymond Wheeler
Berkeley,CA
MTC-00022570
From: Marcus White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
As PC users, my wife and I were extremely disappointed to learn
that A0L Time Warner has, once again, filed suit against Microsoft,
claiming that Microsoft "harmed" AOL's Netscape
Navigator.
I have been using the Internet since the days of the Mosaic
browser, before either Netscape or IE were in use in large numbers.
I well remember downloading free versions of Netscape and IE to test
them side by side to see which one was the better browser-and
Netscape was the better browser, at first. Very soon, however, it
became apparent to me that Microsoft was building the better
browser, and today I use Internet Explorer (and MSN Explorer,
through the Microsoft Network) not because Internet Explorer is the
default browser that comes with the Windows Millenium Edition
operating system that we use on both of our PC's, but because the
Internet Explorer is simply the best browser for the Internet. If I
wanted to use Navigator I would do so.
And this brings me to the whole point about Microsoft, as I see
it: Innovation. Certainly there is a profit motive with Microsoft,
as there is with any other business in any field. Microsoft has
continued to improve their products with each new version of each of
their products until today I find very few non-Microsoft products on
our computers here at our home. The reason is very simple: Microsoft
has the best products available for the things for which we use a
computer.
Up until a few weeks ago I was using both Quicken and MS Money
to keep track of our family finances. Silly? Of course. But I liked
the way each of them worked and provided different ways of looking
at the same data. But after upgrading to MS Money 2002 1 soon
realized that Quicken was now redundant, so I stopped using Quicken
and removed the program from my hard drive. Microsoft makes superior
products, in my humble opinion.
Before closing, I would like to ask what America Online has done
for their customers lately? The AOL with which I am familiar, and to
which I subscribed until recently (when I decided that I could get
the same information on MSN with much less hassle, and certainly on
a much more stable and user-friendly system), has, with only a few
changes, remained the same since AOL 4.0. Several years ago
Microsoft developed their version of the instant messaging system,
which was initially supposed to allow users of their service to
communicate with AOL's AIM, but AOL saw it as a threat to their
security (and dominance in that field) and blocked non-AIM users
from communicating with their service. Yet they have the nerve to
sue Microsoft over the browser issue?! Come on, guys! Get real!
Netscape lost out to IE;
[[Page 27191]]
AOL bought Netscape knowing that the browser war was over and IE had
won, and now they're trying to make financial hay over it! Seems
like a suit "without merit" to me, eh?
Thanks,
Marcus & Carole White
MTC-00022571
From: john heasley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ Antitrust Division,
I am writing this morning to express my support for Dan Kegel's
forthcoming petition for further consideration of points of the
proposed MicroSoft antitrust settlement.
futhermore, Computing has become a necessity in the everyday
lives of nearly the entire population of the globe. The ability to
comumicate electronically, from electronic mail to a text document,
is based on the fundamental concept of interoperability, which is
entirely possible between any computer produced by any manufacturer
if the underlying protocols are made known. This is fact and can be
applied to almost any process, such as the US postal service, and is
exemplified by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF,
www.ietf.org) standards body which has developed many of the
standards used in the Internet today, such as the Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol (SMTP) for e-mail exchange. It may also be seen in
the ITU, who has developed protocols that make even the most basic
telephone call possible.
Without protocols being known, it is impossible for products to
compete because customers will not be willing to sacrifice the
ability to communicate with others. If the basic Internet protocols
had not been published by DARPA in the 1980's, no other networked
device would have been capable of communicating with their machines
and today over 600 millions machines communicate. Those that have
poor implementations of those protocols differentiate themselves
from those who excell by their own sword.
Those businesses who create inferior products, such as
MicroSoft, or whose product's quality diminishes will find
themselves with a mass exodus of customers. Without competition,
those businesses have no incentive to excell and customers have no
alternatives.
In the case of Intel based computers, customers do have a
choice. Alternative operating systems exist. Some of which are
actually stable, secure, and reliable. For example, netbsd
(www.netbsd.org) running on one of my machines has an uptime (ie: a
consistent operating period without any kind of reboot or crash)
usually measured in a number of months vs. the comparable Microsoft
machine measure in hours or days.
There is no contest in my mind; operating systems exist that are
superior to MicroSoft. But within lay two problems.
1) The majority of these alternatives are not suitable for the
casual user. They require a more mature knowledge of computing which
the average user lacks and is not necessarily easily acquired.
2) In computing, as with a simple telephone, the freedom to
choose a product based on it's merits is void if the cost is
interoperability. The value of networking is zero if two devices can
not communicate or, more precisely, a user can not communicate with
any given individual of their choosing.
By MicroSoft being allowed to continue is anti-competitive
practices, they are robbing citizens of their right to choose. They
can not choose alternatives if those alternatives render it
impossible to communicate with those that choose to continue using
MicroSoft products. Furthermore, their agreements with other vendors
for access to their APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) and
other operating system programming specific data exaccerbates the
situation by forcing these businesses to make similar information
proprietaty and thus it is impossible for other vendors to
commuicate (ie: compete).
Imagine yourselves booting your computer and using it error free
until a hardware failure or desired upgrade makes it necessary to
reboot. Imagine applications that are not as frustrating to use as
MicroSoft Powerpoint, but can read and write the documents produced
by them. Imagine applications that do not have gaping security holes
which allow viruses through to destroy your data and cost your
company hours to repair.
It is my firm belief that the DOJ should not consider any
settlement that permits MicroSoft to continue it's onslaught of
anti-competitive contractural agreements through omission of
explicit court demands or vagueness of interpretation of those
demands. Please rule in favor of the people.
Cheers,
john heasley
portland, oregon
MTC-00022572
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:02pm
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,
Timothy Savage
215 4th St N
Naples, FL 34102
MTC-00022573
From: Brian Reigle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think your proposed settlement is a bad idea. I have been
following this through such online sources as Slashdot.org and
Macslash.com. I've read through many comprehensive resources
detailing the Tunney Act proceedings.
-Brian Reigle
MTC-00022574
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a US citizen I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement. I
don't think it does enough to punish it.
Sincerely,
Raffaella Calabria
Annapolis, MD
MTC-00022575
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:06pm
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 Bartels
R.R. 4, Box 116A
Louisville, IL, IL 62858
MTC-00022576
From: Bill Prentice
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my disapproval of the proposed final
judgment in the anti-trust case against Microsoft.
I have found several areas that I feel will not only fail to
prevent Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive behavior in the
future but also re-enforce the current status-quo.
Section III-Subsection A. allows for Microsoft to
terminate an OEMs Windows Operating system license after 2 warning
notices are sent. The section does not define any time frame for
which the notices have to be given within. Conceivably, Microsoft
could use this provision to terminate licensing to an OEM by
counting notice letters sent before the trial began.
[[Page 27192]]
Subsection C.2 : The phrase "so long as such shortcuts do
not impair the functionality of the user interface" is
entirely subjective and may be interpreted to mean Microsoft could
determine that the functionality is impaired by having two internet
browser application icons.
Subsection C.3 : Allows Microsoft to keep OEMs from including
software that fore all intents and purposes has the same look and
feel of Microsoft software-the same premise that Apple
Computers sued and lost to Microsoft in an effort to block the
distribution of the Windows OS
Subsection J.2 : Allows for Microsoft to refuse to provide any
information as listed in the section to any distributor or developer
of any open source type of software as the source code generally
must be distributed and therefore could theoretically allow for any
or all of the refusal conditions to be met
The main point of the findings of fact of the first proceedings
under the Hon. Judge Jackson, and later affirmed by the Appellate
Court, was that Microsoft had used such tactics as these to prevent
and crush competition in the maintenance of its monopoly. By
allowing this proposed settlement the court would be allowing for
the continuation, with the sanction of the courts and government, of
the very things already found to be illegal.
Sincerely,
Bill Prentice
MTC-00022577
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:04pm
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,
Gloria Laird
10532 Linger Lane Orlando, FL 32821
MTC-00022578
From: Miles B.Whitener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: US Dept. of Justice
Please settle the Microsoft matter quickly. As a programmer and
user of software, I have never felt forced by Microsoft to use any
of their products. My experience in writing and using software goes
back almost twenty years. I have always felt that I had a choice
between Microsoft and other brands. I feel that the UNIX providers
did not take the mass market (that is, normal people) seriously back
when they could have beaten Microsoft in the market. This is their
own fault. If you punish Microsoft, it will largely be for
delivering better value to their users, and for failing to pay off
jealous politicians.
Thank you,
Miles Whitener
Manchester, Missouri
Tel. 314-518-7511
MTC-00022579
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:04pm
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,
Fred Steinmetz
7640 Lakeview Dr.
Hillsboro, MO 63050-1526
MTC-00022580
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:11pm
Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE
I am so disgusted with the prolonged and continuously expanding
litigations against Microsoft. The company has done more for
technology and industry in general than I am aware of any other
company having done for a long time. With all of the legal hassle I
have seen my meager savings (I am age 72, retired secretary)
dwindle, not only my few Microsoft shares, but also the few other
holdings I managed to invest in from my puney paycheck. With it has
gone my feeling of security, a large portion of my income (income
from investments has now decreased to almost zero, and my retirement
pay is $900, ss income $553, how would you like to live on that?) .
I am now eligible for low-income senior discounts on taxes and other
expenses which I was able to pay full amounts for previous to the
Microsoft case. Yes other things have affected the economy, but a
fair settlement as I thought had been reached, but now seems in
jeopardy, would be in the best interest of the public and the
economy. Get this damned thing overwith, please. Let's get on with
life and protecting the country from more serious matters.
MTC-00022581
From: William G. Wagoner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 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 77 years old and thankful that Microsoft has provided we
users with software that makes it relatively easy to use a computer.
I was pushed into the computer age by my son-in-law about 8 years
ago. How thankful I am.
I have tried AOL and Netscape. In fact when Netscape was
charging $24 to subscribe, it was given to me. I didn???t even like
it for free.
I subscribed to AOL for approximately 5 years, however I only
used it as a means to get onto Microsoft Internet Explorer.
I have tried Microsoft???s money program and found that Intuits
Quicken was much better. Most computer users will buy the programs
that they feel are the easiest to use or the best available
regardless of who makes them.
I feel that the Companies that are suing Microsoft are only
trying to bring Microsoft down to their level. They should be trying
to develop better software. I have a friend that recently turned 80.
He just bought a new computer with Microsoft XP installed and he and
his wife are thoroughly enjoying the use of it.
It is now almost foolproof. I guess that I should tell you that
the whole package, Computer, 17 inch monitor, and colored printer
cost slightly over $400.00.
Do not allow inferior competitors to bring Microsoft down to
their level!
Sincerely, William G. Wagoner
2591 Devonwood
Ttoy, MI 48098
[email protected]
MTC-00022582
From: Hilton, Jeffrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I am a software professional, and find the proposed settlement
with Microsoft quite disturbing.
1. It is not enforceable in a practical manner. In this time of
war, our government cannot afford to, does not have the resources or
will to, and should not have to, keep the constant active vigilance
that would be required by this settlement to enforce this
settlement. Microsoft has shown a great tenacity in pushing the
limits of the law, and it cannot be assumed that Microsoft will
suddenly try to adhere to the spirit of the law when it is not to
their advantage.
2. It does not prevent Microsoft from artificially raising
barriers to competitors. Nor does it have Microsoft redress any of
the
[[Page 27193]]
many areas were Microsoft used its monopoly to gain advantage. At a
minimum the field should be leveled, but after destroying the
competitive ecosystem, they are also be responsible for restoring
the competitive environment.
3. Microsoft makes its money in a profession were a few changes
in wording (code) can make major changes in the results, and they
are experts at it. Yet, the wording used in the settlement leaves
loop holes in the wording and definitions that are very simple to
get around.
As a software professional I could go on for pages on how
Microsoft used its monopoly status to destroy its competitors in the
software market and that this settlement does nothing to curb those
practices. However, I think it would be better for me to leave the
details to others and simply state my concern that this settlement
is a slap on the wrist, and will do nothing to better the software
field (or industry as a whole) and is not in the publics best
interest.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey M. Hilton
MTC-00022583
From: Regina Keiter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Dear Sir,
I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice in November 2001. This settlement is as fair as possible,
and I am anxious to see this dispute resolved. I sincerely hope that
superfluous action against Microsoft is ended.
This settlement contains provisions that foster competition and
benefit the whole technology industry. Microsoft has pledged to
share more information with other companies, create more
opportunities for other companies, and give consumers more choices.
Under this agreement, Microsoft must design future versions of
Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft software and must
disclose information about certain parts of source codes for
Windows.
During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities
should be improving our lagging economy. Hindering Microsoft will
obviously not achieve this end. Please do not punish Microsoft for
pursuing the American Dream. Please continue to endorse the
settlement. Thank you for your support.
Regina B. Keiter
HC 1 Box 2100 Birchwood Dr.
Tannersville, PA 18372
[email protected]
MTC-00022584
From: NB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-My take on this
To the Department of Justice:
I'm writing to comment upon the settlement of the Microsoft
(MSFT) case and the latest development of AOL to sue MSFT. I believe
the rapidly changing nature in the computer industry has shown that
there was and is a need to allow the marketplace determine the
winners and losers in this industry. The DOJ and the various State's
AG's suit against MSFT was ill-advised. Events have proved the point
that the computer industry changes so rapidly that innovation in its
marketplace may lead a vast majority of consumers to gravitate to a
particular operating system or platform based upon marketing, but
not solely upon the marketing. Whether that platform is competitive
comes down to its flexibility, its utility and its pricing.
Do any of you remember what it was like prior to MSFT's Windows
3.0 and 3.1? The various operating systems and the "barely
adequate" programs that were designed for them led to a
fragmented marketplace and a relatively low utilization of the
desktop computer. The subsequent adoption of the PC by a vast
assortment of people worldwide was a direct result of MSFT's
operating system that proved to be the standard because it allowed
manufacturers to predictably make peripherals and applications that
worked on a machine. This predictability allowed mass production and
distribution so that, for example, the 40 Gigabyte hard drive can
now be purchased (let alone be produced in the first place) for 100
USD.
The great productivity in the US economy, particularly its
service orientation, has been a direct result of the proliferation
of the desktop PC. Because of MSFT's adopted defacto standard
operating system and its program applications, the PC has become a
standard tool in business. No one ordered American business and
consumers to make the PC with the Windows operating system the
dominant force in PC desktops; they're there because they work and
they allow PC communication to occur. For crying out loud, do you
think the vaunted Chinese black market would be producing pirated
software of anything other than a Windows-based operating system if
it didn't work?
Fragmenting this success story by breaking up MSFT and
destroying such a success is only to destroy the productivity base
that has led the USA to a global leadership position. Of course,
this success does have its downsides, too: my bet is that the Al-
Queda and Taliban's computers were all Windows based systems and the
encoding that has been talked about in the press were all systems
that were introduced to the world because they worked so well on the
desktop PC...
Finally, having used browsers from their inception tells me once
again that DOJ and the other whiners like Netscape and the
states" AGs have a very short memory. Their browser's 1.0 and
subsequent generations just plain got better as the revision numbers
continued and we who used them migrated to platforms that worked
better. What good is it to use something that decreases
productiviity and takes hours to get to do something that can be
done in a few seconds. Netscape lost in the marketplace of ideas and
execution because it wasn't a great product and didn't become a
great product. Netscape would have you believe that since they had
the dominant browser at onetime, that the legal system should have
frozen everything in time so that you and I would be forced to buy
Netscape's product then, even though it proved, in time, to be such
an inferior product. Has anyone tried to download and install
Netscape 4.8 +? It doesn't install correctly even when you follow
all their installation suggestions. Has anyone tried using
Netscape's vaunted 6.0+...it doen's live up to their own hype!
Don't take us back to days when we had to use white out and re-
type something to merely change a misspelling or change a format. In
fact, do any of you remember when the PC wasn't used? Like automatic
margin resetting and left justification was the rage BEFORE the
desktop PC became a standard. The success of the PC and MSFT's
innovation has made such archane discussions of "typing"
a thing of the past, thank God, so no one dwells on paper format
changes in business with the EXCEPTION of courts of law: they write
books about such in that profession and number their lines while the
rest of the world moves on to innovation.
I encourage you to settle this suit against MSFT and allow the
marketplace and innovation to move on.
Nathan Watanabe
San Diego, CA
MTC-00022585
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:09pm
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. T
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,
Robert Villanova
98 Shenipsit St.
Ellington, CT 06029-4318
MTC-00022586
From: David Roper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir,
In my opinion Microsoft has flagrantly and repeatedly exploited
its effective monopoly on the supply of PC operating systems to
eliminate competition in other sectors. For example, it has used its
position essentially to eliminate serious competition in the areas
[[Page 27194]]
of office automation suites-word processors, speadsheets, e-
mail and news readers, contact managers and calendars and personal
databases-as well as in the arena of web-browsers. It is now
using its position as vitually the sole supplier of PC operating
systems to force users to upgrade not only the OS, but also all
these essential software applications on a regular basis. May I
suggest that any compromise agreement made with Microsoft must
include an absolute requirement for Microsoft to:
(a) publish complete and detailed description of the file
formats used by all its "Office" applications;
(b) to ensure that any changes to such file formats that are
required to support new versions of these applications are published
at least six months in advance of the production release by
Microsoft of the applications; and
(c) adopt, as the default file format for such office
application such publicly defined formats as are from time to time
issued by bodies such as the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) and the
Object Management Group (OMG). As these membership of these
organisations is open to all, Microsoft should have no problem with
influencing their specifications to ensure completeness and utility.
Yours faithfully,
David Roper mailto:[email protected]
Mountwest 287 Ltd.
Beechwood Manse,
Glenkindie,
By Alford,
Aberdeenshire AB33 8SH
United Kindom
Tel: +44 (0)1330 833882
Fax: +44 (0)1330 833882
Mob: +44 (0)7753 619219
MTC-00022587
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:10pm
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,
Elaine Harbour
Drawer 465
Fairview, OK 73737-0465
MTC-00022588
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:11pm
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,
Jerry Wiles
4565 Mooresville Rd.
Salisbury, NC 28147
MTC-00022589
From: Chris Blount
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir;
I have written you earlier indicating that this country needs to
settle this unfortunate case against Microsoft. I hope that the
settlement approved by Microsoft will be finally accepted.
The new development that AOL now sues Microsoft for
"damages" in the "browser war" is only
further proof that this case is all about easy money and lawyers and
little about competition in the market place.
Being a software programmer I watched my clients willingly one
after another at their own initiative begin to increasingly prefer
the Microsoft IE browser, not because it was cheaper or even free,
but simply because it step-by-step became a more desirable product
yielding business efficiencies far in excess of whatever small cost
it may have had.
Unless this country wants to spend all of our R&D monies on
lawyers and inferior corporate innovation by competitors of
Microsoft, I hope that the DOJ will terminate all this now so that
we can get back to business as usual.
DOJ should not become the AOL corporate legal
("R&D") department; nor should DOJ become the
vehicle for certain members of Congress to "buy" votes
in the districts where Microsoft competitors reside.
Microsoft simply makes more innovative products at a better
price year after year and that is what consumers want. What is so
difficult to understand? Why all this government intervention
socialism?
Sincerely yours,
Chris Blount
PO Box 503
Nome, AK 99762
MTC-00022590
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:11pm
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,
Jeremy Svinkelstin
20 Huntington Street
Fairlawn, NJ 08901-1002
MTC-00022591
From: Matthew Trumbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very much opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement.
Among my many concerns is the settlement's apparent lack of an
effective enforcement mechanism. It is my opinion that the
settlement should not be approved.
Thank you.
Matthew Trumbell
MTC-00022592
From: Yuen Liang
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
To: Department of Justice District Court Judge in Charge of the
Microsoft Antitrust case
Dear Honorable Sir:
I am writing to express my support for Microsoft in the ongoing
antitrust case that has been filed against the company. Microsoft is
a company that created a user-friendly and user-empowering operating
system that took the computer out of the hands of the sophisticated
few and into the hands of everyone-in schools, in factories,
in art, in business. That it has become the dominant operating
system and beat its competition by the merits and virtues of the
software is the American Way. It's the reason why I chose to live in
this country and not in one where arbitrary favors, race, and a
patriarch mentality dominate the culture and government. It is un-
American to punish a company for doing good and doing it fairly in
an open marketplace. (As an aside, I find it of no little
coincidence that the biggest complaints about Microsoft are coming
from those who wish to take Microsoft's place. The major difference
is that they want to do this dishonestly: by forcing Microsoft to go
down using a government decree, instead of letting consumers
decide.)
[[Page 27195]]
Neither I nor my family work for Microsoft. However, I do know
that if it were not for Microsoft products I would not be able to
function as I do in life, both personally and professionally. I work
for a small company which depends on Microsoft products. We freely
chose their platform because it is the most user-friendly and
powerful for our needs. I resent the fact that the government is
telling me-or any one of its citizens, for that
matter-what I can or cannot use. And I do not stand by idly
letting the government force me to choose one way or the other.
The proper function of government is to protect the right of its
citizens and entities to keep the products of labor and creative
work, not to subject human rights to arbitrary whim. I expect the
United States government to do just that, by protecting Microsoft's
right to exist.
Sincerely,
Yuen Liang
Chicago
MTC-00022593
From: m nickle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir(s)/Madam(s),
As a worker in the technology industry and a student of
economics, I have grave concerns about the proposed microsoft
settlement. My concerns are as follows:
1.) By allowing Microsoft to participate in the ongoing
development and marketing of operating systems, application software
and online content, the plantiff is essentially giving Microsoft the
ability to continue to leverage its size and monolithic operating
structure to intimidate competitors from entering the market.
2.) There are no safeguards put in place to prevent Microsoft
from engaging in predatory pricing schemes to gain marketshare. As
we have seen with their entrance into the Internet browser and
multimedia server tools markets (media server), these dumping
practices have an adverse affect on the competitors while
reinforcing Microsofts illegal monopoly.
3.) By allowing Microsoft to continue to develop and market the
leading software development environment (>85% market share), the
government is allowing the defendant to continue to bundle
proprietary APIs that are detrimental to a competitive market. The
solution that I would suggest is that Microsoft should be compelled
to segregate their content (passport, MSN, Xbox), operating systems
and application groups.
Ideally this would be accomplished by appropriately dividing the
company into seperate corporations. Alternatively these divisions
could be turned into seperate operating companies under the same
corporate umbrella. The former proposal would probably have the
least impact to shareholders since the value of the various groups
would be dispersed to them through new share issuances. Ideally,
these mini-Microsofts would be positioned to potentially compete
against one another rather than collude as has been the case.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ongoing issue.
Very respectfully,
Michael Nickle, CISSP
MTC-00022594
From: Kevin Soukup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer and a United States Citizen (encouraged to follow
the laws of this land and willfully do so) I am absolutely appalled
that our US Government is considering settling the case (United
States v. Microsoft) without actually punishing them. They're
convicted monopolists and our Government is going to encourage their
activities by doing nothing!? When President Bush took office, what
did he do, call you guys and tell you to quit interfering with his
friends or something?
Is that what President Bush is all about, big business? Why
doesn't he just come out and say that he doesn't give a crap about
the little people in this country and only cares about the powerful
RICH people that bought him into the Presidency.
I fully disapprove of the settlement and reference the following
since they say it do much more elegantly than I ever could.
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 advertised 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
[[Page 27196]]
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. 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.
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora
Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
MTC-00022595
From: Alan L. Liu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I am sending this email to state that as a U.S. citizen, I am
against the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement, which I believe to be too lenient on the software company.
Linchuan Liu
Mountain View, CA
MTC-00022596
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:12pm
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,
Tanya Altmeyer
7979 E. Princess Dr.
Unit #26
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
MTC-00022597
From: Gail Beddow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
I received a mailing giving this as the e-mail address to which send
comments on the proposed Microsoft settlement. The organization gave the
following as the mailing address (just to make clear for whom this message
is intended):
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
The organization encouraged me to support the settlement, but I do not. I
sent this letter to the Illinois Attorney-General last November:
I have been a software developer for over thirty years. I can assure you
that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact in the Microsoft
Anti-Trust case were entirely correct. I IMPLORE you not to agree to the
latest proposed settlement.
The core of the case is that Microsoft has mis-used its dominance of the
operating system market to exclude competitors from the applications
software market. Their contention that an Internet browser is properly part
of the operating system, rather than an independent application, is
preposterous. Their deliberately non-standard implementation of Sun's
licensed Java language, designed to make competitors'' software
unusable under Microsoft's operating systems, is outrageous. Their practice
of incorporating independly-developed applications into later releases of
their own products without compensation to originators (not addressed in
the suit, and widely-believed in the software community to be accomplished
by reverse-engineering) is deplorable.
The net effect of their depredations has been to decrease variety and
increase costs in the applications market, to the detriment of the citizens
of this state.
Again, I ask you to reject the latest proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Gail Beddow
Gail Beddow Chicago, IL
Mainframe, PC, and Internet Consulting
e-mail: [email protected] homepage:
http://pages.prodigy.net/feaudrey
MTC-00022598
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:15pm
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,
Julie Endres
1213 E. Gunn St. #6
Appleton, WI 54915-2793
MTC-00022599
From: Calvin Harrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to opine that the proposed settlement between the 9 states,
the DOJ, and Microsoft is a bad idea. It does not even qualify as a slap on
the wrist. If it does anything, it allows Microsoft more presence in a
different market. One possible remedy might be, to force Microsoft to open
its file formats, all formats, not just some that are rarely used. Thank
you for you time.
Sincerely,
Calvin Harrigan
MTC-00022600
From: John Wagenseil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:17pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs, Now AOL is going to sue Microsoft. Is it endless? What a joke.
All the lawsuits should be dismissed as frivolous.
I wonder if any of the States suing Microsoft have ever had an Anti-Trust
suit against anybody before. Hey let's all get together and sue the rich
guys, they can afford it. Why, Mcdonalds can afford hundreds of thousands
because the coffee was to hot, so Bill can afford to hand out some money.
AOL has a bigger market share of Internet action than Microsoft, how can
they say Microsoft is being unfair.
Everybody wants to beat Bill, to get his Billions, and nobody worries what
happens to the consumer. My daughter decided to use AOL Messenger a couple
of years ago because her friends did, and AOL Messenger would not talk to
the her Microsoft E-mail. But they could talk to her!!!! Bill's product was
compatible!.
The whole problem is compatibilty. Nobody wants to be compatible except
Bill.
Leave Bill alone.
Regards,
Jww
MTC-00022601
From: casey hutchinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I write to you with the bias of someone who owns several computers and no
Microsoft products. Microsoft is not a productive monopoly. Their drive for
innovation serves only to isolate themselves in the market. They continue
to put out upgrades which are mandatory and products which they create a
niche for, with neither being useful to customers.
If microsoft is fined then those dollars should be channeled into Free
software, but
[[Page 27197]]
even that would be a poor way of dealing with this. Microsoft must be
forced to sell their products to OEMs at one price for all, no discounts
and no restrictions (excepting a one copy one computer license), they must
especially be prevented from punishing OEMs who choose to ship computers
pre-installed with a Microsoft operating system, and a competing (or Free)
operating system.
Furthermore I feel that as Microsoft forbids the resale of Windows licenses
by end users, then they should be forced to buy back any copy of Windows at
original price. Not only for currently selling computers where the buyer
wishes to run a competing (or Free) operating system, but for outdated
copies that legally upgrading customers were not allowed to sell on the
open market.
I thank you for your time encorage you to seek a speedy but fair resolution
to this case.
Casey Hutchinson,
125 Pacheco Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
MTC-00022602
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:14pm
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,
Elaine Harbour
Drawer 465
Fairview, OK 73737-0465
MTC-00022603
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:16pm
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,
Jerry Ball
113 Conly Drive
Pineville, LA 71360
MTC-00022604
From: Margaret Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18pm
Subject: micosoft anti-trust
Stop the ridiculous persecution of Microsoft. What have they ever done
except excel at business and creating superior products. Netscape and the
others should be ashamed and so should the government.
Microsoft has created jobs and opportunity for thousands of ordinary
Americans so leave them alone. Success should be rewarded not persecuted!
This is still America!
MTC-00022605
From:
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18pm
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,
Marilyn Kahn
508 Elektoy Way
Fort Worth, TX 76108-4630
MTC-00022606
From: Bruce Brodnax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:20pm
Subject: MS 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.
Bruce Brodnax
Laguna Niguel, CA
MTC-00022607
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18pm
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,
Don Organ
280 squire pl
Corona, CA 92879
MTC-00022608
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:17pm
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
[[Page 27198]]
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,
Thomas Fitzgerald
412 178th AVE
Carlisle, IA 50047-9475
MTC-00022609
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:18pm
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,
Miriam Boston
12552 Reaves Road
Winter Garden, FL 34787-5501
MTC-00022610
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:19pm
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 Lou Blumling
6 Ewing Street
Oakdale, PA 15071-2115
MTC-00022611
From: Kirt Thiesmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I am opposed to the settlement, or anything else that permits MS to return
to business as usual. They are so big and so powerful that they are able to
throw corporate responsibility out the window. They make a terrific
product, Windows. They deserve their market share because of the excellence
of the product. BUT their attempts to dominate other markets by tying
Windows use to other products is despicable, highly anti-competitive and
destructive of American enterprise. Microsoft is too glib about being the
public's friend and about donating software in huge amounts (suggested
``retail'') when it costs them almost nothing, for the free
publicity. I think the government should see through these shams.
I would like to see a conditional settlement that puts them on probation,
subject to a review in five and ten years to see if MS is participating in
healthy competition or still mis-using their monopoly power. Anything less,
given their money, power and creative genius, is going to result in a few
shifts of emphasis and then business as usual--which means driving out
other innovators. That should not be allowed.
Kirt Thiesmeyer
Glendale, CA
MTC-00022612
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's greed and egotism has led to its anti-trust trial(s). Please
stem and correct this software company's blind eye to the consumer, who
deserves more in terms of options, quality and concern in the personal
computing world: adopt a more appropriate settlement, where the inevitable
justice awaiting Microsoft is finally served.
Sincerely,
Mark Newlon
MTC-00022613
From: John Robert Boynton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've been a programmer and publisher since the mid 1980s. Since 1995 I've
worked in the internet industry for companies around the San Francisco Bay;
writing web applications for companies such as Etrade, Sun, and numerous
startups.
I have several comments about obvious flaws the proposed settlement, and a
suggestion for a small, verifiable behavioral constraint on Microsoft that
could reduce its ability to compete unfairly in the browser market.
Regarding the settlement....
The proposed settlement in this case appears on the face of it to be as
preposterous as the proposed settlement in the civil case. There the
proposed punishment for unfair competition was to give away Microsoft
software, thereby gaining market share. Here, Microsoft can eliminate
competitors with impunity by claiming it is for ``security''. One
significant bit of competition Microsoft faces is from open source
software. Samba and Linux, for example, provide workable file and print
sharing--that would otherwise require purchasing Microsoft servers.
Samba and Linux are cheaper and more reliable than Microsoft products. The
proposed settlement requires Microsoft to share information, but
specifically exempts them from sharing information with open source
projects, and requires software developers to pay for ``third-party
verification''. Open source projects use their large customer and
developer bases for ``verification''.
We have a fair amount of experience with Microsoft's behavior with respect
to legal settlements. With Gates as instigator, they have flouted and
mocked every settlement. This settlement gives them a loophole that they
don't have to share information related to security. Well, surprise! Now
after years of ignoring security, and using lack of security to eliminate
competitors, Gates says it's all about security. Who could look at
Microsoft's record and believe they won't use the word
``security'' as a reason to avoid sharing information with
potential competitors?
I trust that the judicial system's review of the settlement will reject the
obviously wrong-headed elements of the settlement, and insist on some
mechanism that publicly identifies and then stops Gates'' attempts to
defy the settlement. I presume this would mean rejecting the proposed
settlement outright, and incorporating many of the points in a new
settlement-- without the loopholes, and with oversight that holds MS
publicly and legally accountable.
Regarding a new condition.... I have a suggestion for an easily verifiable
condition: all web pages on all Microsoft websites should validate
according to the w3c.org validators. MS has already tried to exclude non-
Microsoft browsers from their websites. In the face of widespread publicity
during the settlement phase, they made a pretense of allowing other
browsers access to their sites. If all of Microsoft's websites must
validate, MS can't gain an advantage over other browser makers by making MS
websites inaccessible to other browsers. ``Can't'', of course, is
too strong a word. If they were also required to follow standard
accessibility guidelines, there would be less room to cheat. Since
Microsoft can test web pages before publishing them to a website, the fine
for publishing invalid web pages could be very high. Since anyone with an
internet connection can test the validity of any web page, there is little
room for Microsoft to hide from this aspect of a settlement. Obviously,
Microsoft's billion+ dollar per month net profit means they could afford to
pay fines. Telco's--with their regional monopolies--seem to
prefer paying fines over allowing competitors'' access to necessary
infrastructure. Small, set fines with no other enforcement mechanism aren't
likely to change MS's behavior.
Requiring valid html pages on Microsoft websites is a relatively small step
toward insisting on fair competition in the browser market, but it would be
useful, and easy to verify.
MTC-00022614
From: Nick Belli
[[Page 27199]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:23pm
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 am opposed to the settlement proposed by Microsoft. I feel the settlement
would be very detrimental to education and fail to address the anti-
competitive actions of Microsoft. As a elementary school district
technology coordinator, I have been involved in implementing computing
solutions for instructional and operational uses. The monopolistic nature
and anti-competitive actions of Microsoft have forced us to make certain
technology decisions that we would rather not have made. In my opinion,
Microsoft's domination of the computer market has harmed educational users
and consumers.
My district has several schools with over eighty percent of the students
receiving free or reduced lunches. We certainly fall in the target group of
schools the proposed settlement proposes to assist. We do not need more
used computers. Too many businesses think computers that no longer have any
value for them will be valuable to a school. In certain circumstances, that
is true but usually the computers are more trouble than they are worth. The
computers address the businesses'' desire for to help (or more
cynically, get a tax write off and get rid of old equipment without the
expense of paying someone to pick it up and dispose of it.) We need to be
able to chose equipment and software that meets our needs and situations.
I think any settlement should take into account the following points: Any
settlement should encourage competition, not help Microsoft dominant yet
another market.
If schools are to be the beneficiary of the settlement, make the settlement
a cash settlement. Remove hardware and MS software from the settlement and
allow schools to freely chose between Windows, Macintosh, and Linux
solutions.
Nick Belli
Information Services Coordinator
Salinas City Elementary School District
840 South Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
831-784-2252 voice
831-784-6893 fax
00022614_0002
MTC-00022615
From: Doug Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am writing in support of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust case. It is imperative that this matter be settled fairly and as
swiftly as possible. Resistance by state governments who continue to insist
upon a break up or massive financial penalties will only serve to cripple
Microsoft, thereby injurying individual consumers and businesses alike.
Most PC users are far more sophisticated than either the trial court or the
Court of Appeals was willing to recognize. In 1995 neither Microsoft nor
Netscape, or AOL for that matter, ever even tried to make a profit from web
brwsers. Microsoft gave IE away as part of the operating system. Netscape
was always a free download, and every modem manufacturer included a copy
with its product. AOL repeatedly mailed its proprietary browser to every
household in America.
By the release of Windows 98, IE 4.0 had features comparable to Netscape;
but users continued to prefer Netscape because it was faster for dialup
browsing. However, the emergence of lost cost broadband service made such
speed differences trivial. Netscape failed to respond to new hardware
technology and consumers no longer had a reason to sit through a 15 MB
download.
Most PC users are perfectly capable of and experienced in
``sophisticated'' operations, such as installing Windows. Had the
trial court or the appellate court had the simple experience of the average
user, there Windows. Had the trial court or the appellate court had the
simple experience of the average user, there would have been a finding that
the default installation of Windows 98 placed an icon on the desktop which
provided direct links to AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and other online
services.
None of these findings were made, and there has been no recognition of the
enormous benefit to both individual consumers and businesses of having a
nearly universal operating system. The widespread use of Windows results in
a compatability benefit which vastly reduces the cost of hardware and third
party software. The comparison with Apple, which has a 100% monopoly on
both operating systems and hardware, is not favorable. Mac users are
repeatedly victimized by Apple's refusal to provide backward compatability.
The balance between abuse of monopoly power and benefit to the consumer
might be different if Microsoft had a history of large dividend payments to
shareholders and exorbitant pricing for 3 or 4 year old operating systems.
This is not the case. Microsoft does not pay dividends; its research and
development is the envy of the industry; and it provides cutting edge
products at reasonable prices.
Any penalties severe enough to cripple Microsoft's ability to continue to
improve its products risks destruction of American leadership in the PC
industry. Individual consumers, businesses of all kinds, programers and
other IT professionals rely upon and benefit from a strong and innovative
Microsoft.
Douglas Sherman
MTC-00022616
From: Brian Bacon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is not a good one. Any acceptable settlement will
NOT be made buy the lawyers of Microsoft.
MTC-00022617
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25pm
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 been a software engineer for the last 19 years applying my expertise
in the Scientific, Educational and Defense industries. My experience
includes a broad spectrum of computer equipment at every level from
massively parallel super computers, to Unix systems , all the way down to
the Macintosh, Linux and Microsoft desktop systems. Over the years my
purchases have been greatly affected by the growing monopoly nature of the
Microsoft operating system. I have, at times, been forced by vendors to
purchase dozens of copies of Windows which I didn't need nor use. There
have been times where I could not purchase Intel based hardware without MS
Windows at ANY mainstream vendor.
You can see where this could cause great frustration to someone who is
trying to be financially responsible with public funds. When the US courts
declared that Microsoft was a monopoly and had participated in unfair trade
practices, I was elated. Finally, something would be done about them.
Now, I understand that there is a proposed settlement called the Tunney
Act. I have read much about this proposed settlement but find it greatly
lacking. It seems to try and address (much too late) the few infractions
that were brought up in the anti-trust hearings but does nothing to change
the years and years of disgusting strong-arm business practices. I am
appalled that some states would even consider this document that looks like
it may have been written in Redmond,WA. Be aware that if Microsoft's
practices aren't changed now it will be much more difficult when they have
control of every part of your daily business.
I am writing this to express my support of the nine states who refused to
sign the settlement and hope they are successful in forcing a settlement
that truly addresses the problem.
Also, in my search for Tunney Act information I came across an essay
written by Dan Kegel. This essay is a ``must read'' for anybody
involved with this case and I personally agree with it. You can find the
essay this at this location: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Thank you.
Bill Thorson
Engineer/Scientist
Mission Research Corp.
Fort Collins, CO
MTC-00022618
From: Rick Bronson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:26pm
[[Page 27200]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
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.
Thank you,
Rick Bronson
Rick Bronson [email protected] Tel 541-485-7264
Amazonia Computing http://www.efn.org/rick
5050 Donald Street
Eugene, OR 97405
MTC-00022619
From: Bill Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement proposed by the Justice Department is hardly a slap on the
wrist for Microsoft. More sever sanctions need to be imposed to ensure that
Microsoft's monopoly does not continue to harm the market. For example, the
``security clause'', which allows Microsoft to choose not to
disclose API information if the company believes it may endanger the
security of the OS, is laughable at best. The architecture of the Operating
System would, according to such terms, ensure that NO data is released to
competitors and third-party developers. By tying in technology such as
ActiveX and Visual Basic for Applications into the core of the operating
system, the company has created intrinsic security problems in their
software. EVERY part of the OS could be construed as insecure. Furthermore,
the tying in of components is another reason why harsher sanctions must be
levied against Microsoft. By forcing the user to use the Microsoft
graphical user interface, the Microsoft Internet Explorer, the Microsoft
Windows Media Player, etc., the company both makes competition difficult,
if not impossible.
Under the US DMCA, competitors are not allowed to reverse engineer MS
Windows, as it would undermine Microsoft's technological protection
measures. As such, the only way for competitors to remain afloat is to
learn about the ``hidden'' APIs and system calls in Windows,
which will only come about through a court-ordered release of source code
and proper, thorough documentation unhindered by restrictive non-disclosure
agreements.
Finally, a settlement or court-ordered sanction should require Microsoft to
re-engineer all further versions of it's operating system and software to
be modular. Should a consumer wish to remove Outlook Express, Internet
Explorer, or Visual Basic and the Windows Scripting Host, he or she should
be able to do so easily.
Microsoft has been in the business of taking over the market via their
monopolistic practices--not in the business of developing a secure
operating system. To ensure that competition occurs throughout the market
place, the suggestions outlined above, as well as the suggestions of
numerous other groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and GNU,
should be given heed.
Bill Sawyer
371 Centennial Hall
Truman State University
Kirksville, MO 63501
MTC-00022620
From: Peter Denniston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24pm
Subject: Feedback on Tunney Review Period of the Microsoft case
Dear Sir:
I am writing to let you know I am very concerned about the continued
persecution of Microsoft by its competitors as represented by the 9 states
who have indicated they are not going to sign the settlement. I have
reviewed the settlement and it seems fair. I am not a legal expert, but I
do work in the computer industry and I can tell you that Microsoft has done
a lot more good than harm in the industry.
*It has established standards that allow consumers to choose from a variety
of different products which has driven prices down (look at the prices of
comparibly priced computer peripherals on the Mac market, a closed system,
and you will see what I mean).
*Consumers benefit from Microsoft's giving away a browser in its operating
system. It doesn't charge extra for the browser and you can always get free
updates from their website. Although there are plenty of other browsers out
there, both free and commerical, the reason that Internet Explorer has done
so well is it is an excellent product that is continually updated with the
latest features and security fixes. Yes, it has helped Microsoft to
distribute the browser in their operating system. If it wasn't any good
however, people wouldn't use it. How many professional designers use
Microsoft Paint which is also included in the operating system? Not that
many--it is not a distribution issue, it is a quality issue. Why don't
people use Netscape? It is a crappy browser that hasn't kept up with
industry standards and AOL hasn't done anything to make it better since
they acquired the product in the middle of this lawsuit.
Please do not let a bunch of companies use litigation to gain unfair
advantage against Microsoft. Other companies should by all means have the
right to sell their products to OEMs for inclusion in their bundled
systems. They should not however have:
* The right to be distributed with Microsoft product media however unless
they mutually work out a deal
* Additional protections from Microsoft competition Consumers and Microsoft
are being unfairly hurt by this lawsuit. Litigation must be a huge
distraction for the company and its having to be overly sensitive to
everything it does must make it very difficult for them to get new products
to market.
In my opinion Microsoft have never overcharged consumers for their
operating systems. It takes a lot of code to get computers to a baseline
where it is easy for programmers to write applications that perform the
tasks that we all depend on so much. Even if this in itself was easy (which
it is not), the process of establishing standards and consensus amongst the
OEM and IHV community is extremely difficult. It is truly amazing what they
have accomplished with the industry since the days of the DOS operating
system. Having said all this, I do agree it is important to have oversight
to prevent unfair competition. An equitable settlement has been reached, an
oversite body established, now it is time for the other states to sign the
agreement.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Peter Denniston
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://
www.hotmail.com
MTC-00022621
From: Phil Burk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a member of the Information Technology sector, I believe the proposed
settlement to be a VERY bad idea.
Thank you,
Phil Burk
MTC-00022622
From: Dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have a hard time understanding how in good conches you can let Microsoft
off with so little if any penalty. For the good of the people Microsoft
needs more than a finger waved in its face. I implore you to stop
Microsoft's monopoly and anti completive practices before they do more
harm.
MTC-00022623
From: Kevin Church
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the current proposed settlement in the Microsoft case will do
nothing more than hurt the American consumer more than ever.
Please reconsider.
Kevin J. Church
[email protected]
MTC-00022624
From: Joe Provo
[[Page 27201]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
The `proposed final judgement' in United States v. Microsoft is
unsatisfactory. The terms by which Microsoft must abide do very little to
keep healthy competition alive, and do absolutely nothing to prevent
Microsoft from resuming their abuse practices of thwarting
interoperability.
Furthermore, Microsoft's ``payment'' in the form of self-
promotion in a market they are demonstrably weak [education] is
transparent. They are not wholly responsible for this payment and should
be; their contribution is a trivial drop in their corporate coffers. If
this form of ``restitution'' is to be implemented, they should be
required to provide FUNDS to educational entities such that the educational
institutions can perpetuate whatever existing standards, programs and
vendor relationships they currently have. This would also give the
educational entities the option of persuing used or new equipment as their
plans allow. Foisting Microsoft cast-offs onto educational entities as a
``gift'' is a blatant grab for a market in which Microsoft does
poorly.
Sincerely,
Joe Provo
Network and computer professional since 1990
107 Marked Tree Road
Needham MA 02492
[email protected]
* [email protected]
* [email protected]
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
MTC-00022625
From: Dick Shoemaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I feel the state and federal governments are over reacting to Microsoft.
This is a new time where new technology lasts only a few years. It is a new
age. Microsoft has made wonderful new products and has controlled the
market because their product is better. I think their prices have been fair
given their research and development. Let Microsoft continue to develop
their products. They are a large reason that the US is ahead of the world
in this area. We should not punish companies for innovation. Judges that
don't understand email have sent this case way out of line. Government that
doesn't understand email and the short time that software products have the
market are hurting our economy. This has gone on way to long.
Sincerely,
Dr. George R. Shoemaker
5510 Ponderosa Drive
Edinboro, PA 16412
cc: Senator Rich Santorun
MTC-00022626
From: Jerry Garren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft
I strongly disagree with this plan to reward Microsoft for their illegal
anti competitive actions.
Jerry Garren
1595 LOVR 26A
Los Osos, CA 93402
MTC-00022627
From: Aaron Gee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:21pm
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'd like to take a moment to comment on the proposed final judgment in the
United States vs. Microsoft case. There appears to be some very serious
flaws on the current proposed final judgment. Considering Microsoft's past
failure to abide by any agreement made with the government, the lenient
remedies with serious loopholes is all the more baffling. Below I will
outline some very basic points that I feel have not been addressed in this
agreement.
1. The Proposed Final Judgment does not prevent Microsoft from raising
artificial barriers against non-Microsoft operating systems designed to
communicate with machines running a Microsoft Operating System. The failure
to even try to offer this rudimentary protection for companies trying to
build products aimed at communicating with windows based machines seems to
be a serious oversight. Without this sort of protection Microsoft is free
to use it's monopoly power to illegally gain market share in different
another market segments by virtue of the desktop. This leads to an
extension of Microsoft monopoly and crushes competition and innovation.
For example: MS makes a change to their web browser that causes the browser
to no longer display pages from apache web servers correctly. This nuance
in the software can be touted as a ``feature'' because (for
example) it allow a Microsoft IIS server to add some new multi-media
content to web pages. In one stroke Microsoft has made every new system
(and many older ones that automatically upgrade) incompatible with the
majority of web servers on the planet. If one would like to see information
from those server correctly they would have to A. download a non MS
product, or the server would be forced to use a MS product. Since most end
users would not want to incur the added expense or time to D/L another
product, service providers are forced into using IIS if they are to deliver
content to their customers.
2. The definition of ``middle ware'' is very different from the
definition that was published in the ``Findings of Fact''. With
the new definition Microsoft can easily make a change to almost any program
considered middleware now so that it does not meet the new definition. Then
Microsoft can and will (based on their historic record to date) withhold
information critical for others to develop middleware products for the MS
operating system.
These are only 2 items in a long list of things I think are lacking in the
current proposed final judgment. I hope that the government will continue
to try and protect the consumer against illegal practices. Only through
strong enforcement of our current anti-trust laws can we protect our
ability as a nation to innovate, and remain the competitive economic
powerhouse country it is.
Aaron Gee
Chief Technical Officer
BestNet of Palm Coast
Palm Coast FL
MTC-00022628
From: Gail Henrichsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft
I have used computers since before DOS. Until Microsoft developed a uniform
system by which software manufacturers could be relatively sure that a
large segment of the public and business world could work from uniformly,
there was chaos. I am at a loss to understand why the government is allying
itself with a competitor of Microsoft and in the process killing the golden
goose.
What would the government like? Maybe it would be fun to ruin Microsoft so
it goes bankrupt and then the software companies that base their programs
on their operating system go bankrupt and finally we all have to learn a
new system and ditch all our present programs? At that point home users
will just return to watching TV.
Why not concentrate on the utility companies for awhile? Let's see- messed
up ATT, lots of techies out of work, unemployment rising--- must be
some more mischief you can work!
Yes, I am an old lady but that means I remember a lot of history.
Gail Henrichsen
Thousand Oaks, CA
MTC-00022629
From: Donald Pothier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be advised that I wish to be numbered within that growing mass of
citizens that are appalled that the DOJ would consider to settle in a case
where the defendant is so blatantly guilty of violating the rights of the
American public by restricting the free enterprise system through coercion
of other potential suppliers.
Microsoft seems to be using its ill gotten gains very effectively to
overwhelm anyone, including the US government, that tries to limit the MS
dominance of the computer marketplace, or even for potential competitors to
share in this market on a level playing field .
Please do not settle with Microsoft until and unless their unfair business
tactics are curtailed.
Donald F. Pothier
Fort Pierce, Florida
Retired but a regular user of PCs and associated Software
MTC-00022630
From: Jerry Garren
[[Page 27202]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft
I strongly disagree with this plan to reward Microsoft for their illegal
anti competitive actions.
Jerry Garren
1595 LOVR 26A
Los Osos, CA 93402
MTC-00022631
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:25pm
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,
ERLE HOWERY
5028 Kiva Drive
P.O. Box 520
Copperopolis, CA 95228
MTC-00022632
From: Chad Smykay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I completely disagree with the settlement agreed put forward. Especially
the part about the education. While I don't have a problem in the short
term of the contract for Microsoft the issue support and/or operating
systems for schools I have a problem with it in the long run. What is going
to happen is that they will be able to pull all schools in America in to
deals that they might not necessary lead.
Please do not pass this settlement without reviewing other options.
Kind Regards,
Chad Smykay
Rackspace Managed Hosting
210-892-4025 ext. 1249
http://www.rackspace.com
MTC-00022633
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:27pm
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,
Joe R Wood, Jr.
607 Ridgeview Cir
Rocklin, CA 95677
MTC-00022634
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:26pm
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,
Thomas Littlejohn
27181 Calle Juanita
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624-1063
MTC-00022635
From: Mark S. Irle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:28pm
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft-DOJ Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
The Microsoft-DOJ settlement echoes the punchline ``Stop, or I'll say
stop again!'' in the old joke about an unarmed British Bobbie
attempting an arrest of a fleeing thief. John Ashcroft's toothless
capitulation to Microsoft in this case reminds me of Neville Chamberlin
waving his Munich Pact in the wind. While Bill Gates publicly managed to
hold his post announcement glee down to his trademark arrogant smirk,
privately this appeasement must have him laughing at our
``Justice'' harder than Hitler did at the Brits and French.
Bill Gates and Microsoft are notorious for never signing any contract,
entering into any agreement, partnership, or settlement, or seeing any
court order he felt obligated to honor (remember, this case started when
Microsoft refused to obey its earlier ``settlement'' with the
Justice Department). Ashcroft has given new meaning to the counter-cliche
``snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,'' and the losers are
us. He sold us out to a criminal organization, freeing them to turn the
screws on us, and from here forth we will pay, and pay, and pay.
This settlement is riddled with more holes than the security of a Microsoft
Operating System. Nothing in it will stop us from having to pay the
``Microsoft Tax'', forcing us to buy Microsoft's overpriced, ever
expanding operating systems bloated with his bundled software along with
other Microsoft products when purchasing a computer even if we don't want
them, have no intention of using them, and with no recourse for returning
them.
Nothing in this settlement will stop Microsoft from demanding that we keep
giving them more and more of our personal information to even activate
their operating systems, using that information to track and profile us on
the internet while selling our information to any cohort willing to pay his
price.
Nothing in this settlement will stop Microsoft or their minions from
storing our information on his infamously insecure systems, leaving it
unshielded from any thieving crackers, phreaks, and lamers that would steal
it.
Nothing in this settlement will stop Microsoft from continuing to co-opt or
steal any innovation that suits them and destroying any software developers
that might threaten their dream of global information system dominance.
Nothing in this settlement will stop Microsoft's relentless drive to
conquer the internet and make the web their own exclusive proprietary
marketplace that we will use only how Microsoft allows us to use it, for
which they will make us pay dearly. The possession and control of
information is the greatest force in the world today, far more powerful
than money, weapons, or energy, and Microsoft will not let some farcical
settlement with some trifling government stop their hell bent drive to
acquire and command every bit of that power they can capture for their own.
If you accept this agreement, we will be assimilated. Our resistance will
be futile.
Mark S. Irle
IT Director
Standard Equity Agency
Suite C-45
5901 Peachtree-Dunwoody Road
Atlanta, GA 30328-7155
MTC-00022636
From: Jeffrey Wescott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement with Microsoft is a disgrace. It is exactly this
``slap on the wrist'' type of behavior that makes us all slaves
to corporate interests. As a software professional, I am truly concerned at
what this settlement will bring to the industry.
++jeff
MTC-00022637
From: Dan Jansen
[[Page 27203]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a concerned member of the voting public, I find the Microsoft anti-trust
proceedings troubling.
Microsoft appears to be attempting to coerce the outcome of the trial to
help make the company an even bigger seller of software than they were
before the proceedings began. By attempting to capture a significant
percentage of the educational market for software, by effectively dumping
products into school systems, Microsoft will be shaping the expectations of
new users at a very early age, impressing on them that a computer
``should look, feel, behave, and present in a particular
fashion''.
Furthermore, it would appear that Microsoft is the only one doing any
proposing here. Little has been said, anywhere, about the Department of
Justice offering a settlement to Microsoft. There is a ``here,
Department of Justice, take it or leave it'' feel to the whole
situation. I will cut to the chase. The DOJ is the DOJ, and not some groups
of pantywaists that Microsoft should be allowed to bully. Start telling the
corporate types what they can and can't do. They're using their own
creativity in how to tell the DOJ what they can and can't do, and that's
because they don't respect the DOJ, or law, or any other sort of authority
besides what makes them the most money.
Enough said.
Daniel E. Jansen
MTC-00022638
From: James Aird
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find it a rather sad state of affairs when States are going to profit
from the supposed harm of having microsofts Internet Explorer preinstalled
on computers, which is now part of it's operating system. It's also very
sad that the people supposedly harmed by this(the computer user) are not
going to get any of the money. I urge you to stop the witch-hunt.
Tax paying Citizen who would like to see states MEET their budget without
ripping microsoft off.
James Douglas Aird
100 lakeview park road APT #74
Colonial Heights VA, 23834
MTC-00022639
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:28pm
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,
Henry A. Pinand
80 Upper Hibernia, Rd.
Rockaway, NJ 07866
MTC-00022640
From: Don Rahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir,
Please review and complete this process so we can get back to more
important business. The settlement seems satisfactory and should be
concluded as soon as possible. I think the government has better thing to
be done than dragging this out. We need protection from outside the US not
from businesses that produce jobs in the US and add to the gross product of
our nation.
Sincerely,
Don Rahl
MTC-00022641
From: Timothy Frye
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I believe that the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and
Microsoft does far too little to make retribution for the practices of
Microsoft. In fact, I believe that the settlement is just a minor slap on
the wrist for Microsoft and that more needs to be done to ensure that it's
business practices and strong-arming techniques do not occur again. The
settlement does not address leveling the playing ground with it's
competitors as much as it speaks of Microsoft ``giving back'' to
the community(country). In fact, this ``giving back'' will just
serve to further Microsoft's monopoly by putting more Microsoft products on
people's machines. We (the community at large) need to see that this
settlement will encourage competition and force Microsoft yield to
competition. Perhaps, that could mean releasing source code to some of
their more common protocols or maybe even forcing them to release their
older software, such as Windows 3.1 or MS-DOS, into the public
domain. I would just like to see more intense reprimands.
Thank you,
Timothy Frye
Library Systems Manager
Dimond Library
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3592
MTC-00022642
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:30pm
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 G. Davis
5454 N. Arroyo Vista Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85718-5429
MTC-00022643
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:30pm
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 G. Davis
5454 N. Arroyo Vista Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85718-5429
MTC-00022644
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:32pm
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
[[Page 27204]]
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,
Margaret Corbett
9617 South Bell Avenue
Chicago, IL 60643-1626
MTC-00022646
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to REJECT the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. The
proposed settlement will NOT, ``provide a prompt, certain and
effective remedy for consumers by imposing injunctive relief to halt
continuance and prevent recurrence of the violations of the Sherman Act by
Microsoft that were upheld by the Court of Appeals and restore competitive
conditions to the market,'' as it states. It provides inadequate
relief to consumers and victims of Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, and
virtually no oversight or encumberance on Microsoft to prevent its
continued anti-competetive practices in the future.
James DeWitt
Fort Collins, Colorado,
Software
Engineer
MTC-00022649
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:31pm
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 Robinson
4860 Black Oak Mine Rd
Garden Valley, CA 95633
MTC-00022650
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:31pm
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,
Jeffrey Rauen
P.O. Box 3995
Visalia, CA 93279
MTC-00022674
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:33pm
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,
Shirley Gaines
PO Box 939
Flemington, NJ 08822-0939
MTC-00022675
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:36pm
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,
Michael Weiblen
Longmont Colorado
MTC-00022676
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:32pm
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,
Sheryl Sheryl
12 Driftwood Court
Umatilla, OR 97882
MTC-00022677
From: John Engelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough. Nothing will
be gained by the computer user.
Please settle this.
Sincerely,
John Engleman
MTC-00022678
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:32pm
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
[[Page 27205]]
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 Stewart
157 1st Ave North
Naples, FL 34102-5902
MTC-00022679
From: Richard Gallery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am urging you to settle the Microsoft litigation against this United
State icon.
We the tax payers are spending too much money chasing shadows of unfounded
alligations. Microsoft a giant and leader in the industry is spending too
much time and effort trying to address the problem. The company could use
that effort and money building better products and more job opportunities.
We should stop putting all this money into lawyers pockets.
If we don't act soon--some foreign company will replace Microsoft as
the leader and our country will be the loser.
Richard J. Gallery
64 Willard Street Unit 405
Quincy, MA 02169
MTC-00022680
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:34pm
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,
Olga Leilani Jugoz
520 N fifth street
San Jose, CA 95112
MTC-00022681
From: Michael McHale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
1066 Chrisler Avenue
Schenectady, NY 12303-1216
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the Microsoft
antitrust dispute. I feel this dispute has gone on too long. It is time to
devote our resources to more pressing concerns. For these reasons, I fully
support the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the
government in November. I feel this settlement is fair and sufficient to
deal with the issues of this lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to fully carry
out all provisions of this agreement. Among the many provisions Microsoft
has agreed to, noteworthy ones include: designing future versions of
Windows to make it easier to install non- Microsoft software, disclosing
for use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows
operating system, and licensing its Windows operating system products to
the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms, including price. This
settlement will benefit the entire technology industry.
I have been actively involved in the computer business since 1996. I have
discussed this pending decision with many of my customers and the majority
of them agree that Microsoft is a company that has contributed a great deal
to our society. Our daily lives are made easier by Microsoft products.
Stifling this company will only have adverse effects on consumers. Please
support this settlement. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McHale, CEO NSN Computer Upgrades & Repair
MTC-00022682
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing you today to voice my support for Microsoft, and the Microsoft
settlement that was reached on November 6, 2001. This settlement is fair
and reasonable. The continuing law suits only benefit the attorney's at the
expense of the public and the stockholders. After three long years of
litigation, it will be in the best interest of the public to end this
dispute promptly.
Microsoft has been most forward thinking and innovative, thereby providing
great service to its customers. It has contributed immensely to our economy
and technology industry. Microsoft has also contributed to businesses and
individuals by making it easier to conduct business. I feel very strongly
that Microsoft should not be penalized for doing its job well and being
successful.
The settlement will make it even easier for IT companies to do business. It
guarantees that Microsoft will not take any retaliatory measures against
hardware firms working with other software firms, and Microsoft also will
be forced to avoid confrontation of software firms that enter the operating
system market. The increased competition resulting from this will certainly
be good for customers, and will make Microsoft more responsive to the
market. I am pleased that Microsoft will finally be allowed to devote its
resources to innovative practices instead of litigation, which has cost the
company millions of dollars. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Kenneth H. Woolf
Cc: Representative Jeff Miller
MTC-00022683
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:35pm
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,
Eugene Sumskis
4753 Burns Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
MTC-00022684
From: Geoff Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:38pm
Subject: Let's get serious
Your honour
I have been in the systems business since 1965. I watched IBM abuse it's
monopoly power for decades. Now we have microsoft doing the same. When I
call the microsoft help desk for some advice about a problem in their
operating system--they dismiss the query unless you are using
Microsoft products (I use netscape and macromedia dreamweaver and
fireworks). Is this tying?
Much more sinister is their capacity to destroy industry standards with
newly created proprietary products. Get you techies to explain to you how
Microsoft are destroying the industry standard language java with c#.
Also get the to explore how the
[[Page 27206]]
latest versions of microsoft operating applications do not recognise the
industry standard graphics format jpeg.
Microsoft are what business strategy people call a fast follower. They do
not create new and innovative technology they imitate (occasionally buy) or
crush new technology. Windows came from Zerox via Apple. Their early
browser was an imitation of Netscape. DOS which got them, going
originally--was an expansion of QDOS. A quick and dirty operating
system written by a salesman in a computer store. They are crushing Java
and jpeg.
Don't let the low IQ Texan stumblebum you guys didn't elect as president
pervert the course of justice by allowing Microsoft to continue their
plunder.
Regards
Geoff Stewart
MTC-00022685
From: LUCAS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I urge the court to accept the settlement agreed upon by the Justice
Department and the reasonable half of the states attorneys general. While I
firmly believe that the entire case against Microsoft is fraudulent, and
the decision of the appeals court was not based on any logical
understanding of harm to consumers, the proposed settlement is the LEAST
UNJUST way of ending this travesty of justice.
The principle complainants seem to be Microsoft's jealous competitors who,
losing customer support for their technically inferior products, used the
political support their contributions had won them with the Clinton Justice
Department and the willing assistance of an utterly biased Judge to try and
reverse the wishes of consumers. Anyone who ever used (or attempted to use)
Netscape understands that Netscape failed because it was INFERIOR, utterly
BUG RIDDEN and CUMBERSOME to use. Microsoft simply offered a significantly
better solution to internet connection, and made it part of the operating
system where it belongs.
It seems too late for common sense to prevail in this overly politicized
version of judicial ``theater'', so the settlement is the next
best solution.
But the Justice Department's Microsoft mess does follow the pattern of
useless legal busywork the lightweights in the Anti Trust Division seem
compelled to repeatedly pursue, causing immense harm to American consumers.
Will we ever recover from the damage caused to the economy by Judge Green's
20 year micro management of the telephone company (and the ever more costly
bungling of the successor demon, the FCC), or the Justice Department's
fruitless 10 year jihad against IBM. The single most important thing
Attorney General Ashcroft could do to help the economy would be a top-to-
bottom housecleaning of the political ideologues in the Anti Trust
division.
It's high time America came first.
John Lucas
1621 North 50th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208
[email protected]
MTC-00022686
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:38pm
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,
John K. Fox, Ph.D.
POB 491
www.johnkfox.org
Talent, OR 97540-0491
MTC-00022687
From: Colby, David L.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 3:39pm
Subject: You gave in to Microsoft
Windows 98 still costs $89.00 even after being replaced by two versions (ME
& XP). When they can still make users pay that much for out of date
software something is definitely wrong.
I hope the judge throws out your settlement.
Dave C
MTC-00022688
From: [email protected].
net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:36pm
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,
Donald Weeks
P O Box 1026
Arlington, TX 76004-1026
MTC-00022689
From: Craig Milito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:40pm
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.
MTC-00022690
From: Roberts, Mark
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What a wonderful settlement. Microsoft is basically being asked to
discontinue acting like a monopoly and not retaliate against anyone they
screwed over. Any organization that has 36 billion in cash reserves gained
through monopolistic practices needs to be hit a lot harder.
Mark Roberts
Xperts, Inc.
software design & engineering
Interested in B2B? Give us a buzz. 804-967-0700.
MTC-00022691
From: Laurence G. Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department--
It is my opinion that any settlement imposed on Microsoft truly address the
root of the case: Microsoft used its monopoly share of the market in order
to unfairly quash competition, and it continues to do so today. Any
settlement that allows for donation of software should be ruled out, other
than to current customers of the company--and the value of that
donation should be calculated on the basis of the cost of materials, not an
inflated retail price.
Any fines imposed on the company should be done so in a way that precludes
Microsoft having any say in the disposition of such funds. I consider the
original judgement calling for the break up of the company into two
separate companies wouild have been a far more appropriate remedy.
Sincerely yours,
Larry Roth
MTC-00022692
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:42pm
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
[[Page 27207]]
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,
John C Weaver Jr
1300 Maple Ave
Elmira, NY 14904-2834
MTC-00022693
From: Matthew Dowd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the microsoft settlement. It does nothing to remedy the
damage done by Microsoft's illegal practices and it will not prevent
Microsoft from abusing its monopoly in the future.
Matthew Dowd
55 Terrace Ave
Niantic, CT 06357
MTC-00022694
From: David Kris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does not go far enough in curtailing microsofts
ability to set the personal computing agenda. The goverment must ask for
more concessions.
Kristian G. Kvilekval
email:[email protected] office:(805)893-4178 http://
www.cs.ucsb.edu/kris
MTC-00022695
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:41pm
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,
Phil Dragoo
310 Airport Road #311
Santa Fe, NM 87505-1809
MTC-00022696
From: Giles Hendrix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
USDOJ-
The final judgment in the Microsoft case as currently written seriously
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The solution given, a Technical
Committee with investigative powers, would only continue the cycle of
litigation that favors Microsoft's massive legal resources. The public's
interest will also be forced into the legal system again when violations
continue, thus wasting the much exhausted resources of the government and
private sector. A final judgment must be decisive and strictly and easily
enforceable. Such a judgment would not only be more effective, but would
save more money for the taxpayer in the future. The current judgment does
not do this and I do NOT support it.
Giles Hendrix
Brooklyn, NY
Dir. Media Design
webslingerZ, Inc.
MTC-00022697
From: James Roberts
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my personal opinion that the proposed settlement not adequate.
James Roberts
Software Engineer
Bankware
(205) 408-9998 x 264
MTC-00022698
From: Russo, Vincent
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
December 13,2001
The Hon. Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General
55 Elm Street Hartford, CT
Dear Attorney General Blumenthal:
We are writing to express our strong support for your decision to challenge
what we consider to be a weak and ineffective settlement of the federal
anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. We stand with you in your effort to
stand up for Connecticut consumers and for restoring competition to an
industry so important to our economy. As state lawmakers, we have worked
hard and continue to work to strengthen our economy, encourage small
businesses that create jobs, and protect consumers. This proposed
settlement works against all of us committed to those goals by allowing
Microsoft to continue to bully consumers and competitors.
The proposed settlement fails on every front. It will not end
Microsoft's monopoly as the law demands. Instead, it will strengthen
and extend Microsoft's monopoly power and its ability to inflate software
prices, block innovation and prevent competition. Consumers will continue
to pay more for fewer choices and for products compromised by a lack of
competition and innovation. This proposed settlement rewards Microsoft's
tactics of intimidation, not innovation.
Furthermore, the settlement does nothing to prevent Microsoft from
attacking other markets with ever more aggressive tactics in the future.
The company's newest operating system, Windows XP, is only the company's
most recent and most egregious attempt yet to leverage its existing
monopolies to create new ones, this time, on the Internet. Microsoft is
positioning itself to control Internet commerce with a hand in nearly every
commercial online transaction. We know your decision to join eight other
Attorneys General in challenge this settlement comes in the face of an
unprecedented, multi-million dollar Microsoft campaign of influence buying
and political pressure. Microsoft has spent millions in political
contributions and phony front groups and lobbyists to win outside the court
room what the law and the facts prevented them from winning inside the
courtroom. We applaud you for standing up for the consumers and we stand
ready to support your efforts.
Sincerely,
Bob Godfrey--110th District
Chris Murphy--81st District
Walter Pawelkiewicz--49th District
John Mordasky--52nd District
Jessie Stratton--17th District
John Geragosian--25th District
MTC-00022699
From: Megan Holbrook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is *bad* idea, and promotes rather than prevents
anti-competitive behaviour on the part of Microsoft.
Megan [email protected]
Partner--Business Development
kapow, inc. (www.kapow.com)
kapow, inc. Milwaukee
kapow, inc. Los Angeles
2405 E. Wyoming Place 2130
Sawtelle Blvd, #302A
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Los Angeles, CA 90025
T: 414-273-2446 * F: 419-793-6271 T:
310-479-2020 * F: 310-473-3711
MTC-00022700
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:44pm
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.
[[Page 27208]]
Sincerely,
Kim Holliday
14213 4th St.
Santa Fe, TX 77517
MTC-00022701
From: Dale Grover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to register my strong objections to the proposed settlement
involving Microsoft. One of many problems with this proposed settlement is
that it fails to address the issue of proprietary file formats, which can
create a barrier to entry for third parties as much as other elements of
Windows.
In my opinion, this settlement does not do enough to remedy the illegal
practices of Microsoft, and must be strengthened considerably to truly be
in the public's interest.
--Dale Grover
Red Cedar Electronics
Lansing, MI
MTC-00022702
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:44pm
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,
Jerry Babbitt
38526 Frontier Ave
Palmdale, CA 93550-4314
MTC-00022703
From: Jamie Piperberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement for the Microsoft Anti-trust case is a good step,
but it needs to go farther. Microsoft doesn't just need to be punished for
their blatant anti-competitive practices, they need to be punished for some
of the more subtle things as well, specifically making it easier for people
to write a competing software product.
Micorsoft Office is used almost exclusively throughout the business world.
I don't use it if I can avoid it, but I still have to be able to read the
file formats, and send documents to others in those formats. The file
formats for all MS Office applications should be opened to the public.
Competing products need to be able to read and write Microsoft's format as
well, if not better than Microsoft in order to have any chance of
competing. Although the formats for Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, and
Powerpoint may not be the best formats for the job, they have become the
default standard and like any other standard it needs to be available for
everyone to use. What would have happened to the internet if each web
browser used different versions of html and wouldn't release the specific
specs? You would need multiple browsers open at once depending on which
webpage you wanted to look at. Large companies would have to make several
versions of their webpage in order to allow anyone to look at it. It would
have been a disaster. But Microsoft has moved in there too. There are many
webpages out there that do not render correctly in Netscape or other
competing browsers (Opera, iCab, OmniWeb, Konqueror etc.) because they use
Internet Explorer specific calls. One company should not be able to define
the standards for any major aspect of computing, , especially not one as
widespread as the internet.
Microsoft also needs to be forced to release more of their API's to the
public so competitors have a chance of making their applications run on par
with Microsofts. Microsoft has the unfair advantage of knowing all the
tricks with the operating system because they wrote it too, They're allowed
to see the API's, everyone else should be allowed to too.
Thank you for your concern, and please don't let Microsoft win this battle.
It would be very bad for the computing industry as a whole.
Thank you,
Jamie Piperberg
MTC-00022704
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:44pm
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,
myron waldrop
795 jack page ln
canton, GA 30114
MTC-00022705
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please allow me to add my voice to those who support approval of the
settlement between DOJ and Microsoft.
I am a retired attorney, having spent several decades in private practice
and as a government trial attorney.and supervisor. During the later portion
of my professional career I rendered service as a mediator and arbitrator.
I have seen disputes from a variety of perspectives: as plaintiff ,
defendant, peace maker and arbitrer.
From this vantage point, it has become clear to me that litigation,
particularly of the protracted variety, is the worst possible way to settle
disputes. There are no real winners,since even the party who prevails bears
substantial expense, waste of time, stress and uncertainty. Where, as here,
one of the parties is a government agency the additional ingredient of the
public interest comes into play. I am not an expert in anti-trust law, my
primary experience having been in labor and employment law.
However, from the viewpoint of a member of the public, it is my firm
conviction that if the DOJ and a number of the states have reached a
settlement agreement with Microsoft, it would be counter-productive to
disapprove such an agreement.
The hold-out states have their reasons for not wanting to join in the
agreement, and while I have strong opinions concerning such unreasonable
intransigence and obstructionism, that is a matter beyond the scope of the
comments that have been invited.
Microsoft has made substantial and significant contributions to technology
and to the economy. The public will gain nothing through the perpetuation
of this unnecessary battle. Settlement will be in the best interest of the
public from a variety of viewpoints.
I respectfully urge the Court to approve the Settlement which is now before
it.
Respectfully,
Heriberto (Herb) de Leon
P.O. Box 380291
Duncanville, TX 75116
MTC-00022706
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:46pm
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.
[[Page 27209]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
tony grim
box4131
kingston, NY 12401
MTC-00022707
From: Shannon Prickett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I'm writing to express concerns I have with the Proposed Final Judgment in
the case against Microsoft.
In particular, Section III.A.2 requires that OEMs ship only units with
Microsoft's operating systems installed or be subject to retaliation from
Microsoft. This allowance seems created in particular to shackle those
companies who would do any business in computers with Microsoft's operating
systems installed to doing business exclusively with Microsoft. A loophole
like this in the Proposed Final Judgment leaves Microsoft's illegal
practices virtually unchanged. I'm asking you to strengthen the measures to
be taken against Microsoft in accord with those outlined by Dan Kegel at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#fix for the sake of consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Shannon.
MTC-00022708
From: Corey Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer professional, I believe that the proposed Microsoft
settlement is a fair deal for all concerned. The initial case was bunk, and
here we are years later with a much changed competitive landscape. Settle
the case and be done with it.
Sincerely,
Corey Cole
MTC-00022709
From: Nancy Ging
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
I have just been reading the settlement proposed for the Microsoft
antitrust case, and am appalled at what I've found in the documents. The
proposed remedy will in fact serve to further Microsoft's monopolistic hold
on the computer operating system market.
They will be installing Windows computers with Windows softwares in our
nation's schools. People who receive initial training in Windows are highly
unlikely to change later when they begin to purchase products on their own.
This is NOT because the Microsoft products are the best. It is because
learning a new system is time consuming and expensive. Students trained on
Windows will become consumers of Windows only because it's easier.
Microsoft has always leveraged that fact of human nature in every way
possible. This is just their latest attempt.
If schools had the option to choose their hardware and software *freely*
under the agreement (meaning no penalty from Microsoft now or in the future
for their choices), that would at least be a little better. Best of all
would be if Microsoft was totally removed from the process altogether
except for having to fund it. The process should also include honest,
factual operating system comparison information (produced by a neutral
party) so schools can make an informed decision about the hardware and
software they want. Training on any operating system should also be an
option. This would allow *real* competition back into the system.
Please do what you can to make this a true remedy, one that actually
penalizes Microsoft for their illegal behavior, and not just another
example of deceptive tactics on the part of the Microsoft monopoly. It is a
great shame for a country based on the benefits of open competition to
allow its most promising technology to be controlled and manipulated by the
illegal tactics of a monopolistic giant.
I have faith that you and the Antitrust Division will see that Microsoft
behavior is truly rectified, justice is served, and the penalty for such
illegal behavior is not just paid lip service.
Respectfully,
Nancy Ging
[email protected]
MTC-00022710
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:50pm
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,
Tammy Haskins
402 Hidden Oaks Ln.
Corsicana, TX 75110
MTC-00022711
From: Scott McCool
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft antitrust case. As both a professional software engineer and a
long time computer user, I am outraged at the way your department has quite
literally ignored previous court rulings and finding of facts. The
currently proposed remedies do not even amount to a slap on the wrist, and
it appears Microsoft has been able to insert loopholes into every important
facet of the agreement.
The insistence that 3rd party middleware can be bypassed if it ``fails
to implement a reasonable technical requirement'' basically allows
them to define their own requirements (Their proprietary ActiveX
technology, for instance), then ignore third party applications that don't
implement a requirement that MS defined and controls.
Equally as absurd is the caveat which allows Microsoft to withhold any API
on the grounds that it might ``compromise the security of a particular
installation...''. First of all, Microsoft is the last company in the
world that should be listened to when it comes to designing secure
applications. Second of all, the history of computing is filled with
examples of open API's resulting in significantly more secure applications
and operating systems. Open source software and API's are not just theories
or experiments, but rather proven design paradigms that result in robust
and secure software.
Aside from particular concerns with the agreement, I find the entire
process to be in complete opposition of the spirit and letter of previous
court findings. Frankly, it appears as if Department of Justice has decided
to ignore every previous finding of fault in Microsoft, as well as
previously proposed remedies, and instead come up with a nearly
incomprehensible legal agreement with virtually zero teeth and declare it a
win for the government. The acceptance of this proposal will do nothing to
curtail Microsoft's monopoly, to help competitors, to protect the consumer
from the effects of predatory pricing and the lack of competitors, or to
punish Microsoft financially for years of illegal monopolistic acts.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my displeasure.
Sincerely,
Scott McCool
Reston, Virginia
MTC-00022712
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:48pm
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,
[[Page 27210]]
Tifany Schneider
321 West G. Avenue
North Little Rock, AR 72116
MTC-00022713
From: edmond temple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Why are you letting these crooks off? It increasingly seems that lying ,
cheating, stealing is the path to corporate success now a days and it seems
to have gov't approval
Shame on you
Edmond Temple, Ph.D.
MTC-00022714
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:52pm
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,
Patricia Adams
208 Cedarwood Court
DeBary, FL 32713-2222
MTC-00022715
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:51pm
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,
Joy McDaniel
554 Matthew Dr.
Canton, GA 30114
MTC-00022716
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:52pm
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,
Rev. Alvin Cordes
3202 Henrietta
St. Louis,, MO 63104
MTC-00022717
From: Dadio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion the settlement is a bad idea.
Frank Ruby
MTC-00022718
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:51pm
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,
Norma Summers
1304 E. 10th St. Apt. 16B
Atlantic, IA 50022-1942
MTC-00022719
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
Subject: Attention Renata Hesse
Andy Yates
[AHREF=``mailto:[email protected]'']De
[email protected][/A]
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, NC
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
As a graduating senior at Wake Forest University and president of the
College Republicans Club, I have been a student in the ``technological
age'' since I was in high school. In fact, as you may or may not know,
Wake Forest was one of the first schools in the nation to require that all
students have assigned lap-top computers for their dorms and classes. In
the many years I have spent working with these educational tools, of
course, Microsoft products iare practically all I have used. During that
time, I have never experienced any ``consumer harm'' from being
one of millions of Microsoft users on thousands of college campuses across
this country.
Since I have great interest in political matters, I have followed the
Microsoft case with some interest and I wanted to comment at this time.
Despite the fact that I have never approved of the government's handling of
this case, I do heartily endorse the settlement in the case because it is
the right thing to do. It is wrong to keep a company like Microsoft legally
bottled up for so long and to keep government lawyers tied up on a case
that would simply go on year after year and appeal after appeal. And since
all major parties to the case agree to the settlement--except for nine
AGs--why not?
In reviewing the settlement, I saw that Microsoft would come under
independent monitoring and would have to make guarantees in regard to
product production, etc. This sounds like the kind of conditions that the
Department of Justice has been seeking all along and I am glad that all
parties will benefit. But such is the nature of a settlement, true?
I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this topic.
Sincerely,
Andy Yates
MTC-00022720
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
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
[[Page 27211]]
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,
Patricia B
2428 Chickamauga Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33409-5003
MTC-00022721
From: Norman J. Harman Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been
converted to attachment.]
MTC-00022721 0001
[This document is a public comment submitted under the Tunney Act] [CIS]
below refers to the document available on Jan 23,2002 at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm [PFJ] below refers to the document
available on Jan 23,2002 at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
[complaint] below refers to the document available on Jan 23,2002 at http:/
/www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm To whom it may concern,
I have followed UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION for a
long time and have spent the last 9, and counting, hours reading essays,
editorials and court documents relating to it. I certainly can not claim to
know all the law that applies, nor fully comprehend the history of how we
(The People of the United States of America) arrived at this point in our
case against Microsoft Corporation. However, I do understand that
Microsoft's illegal monopoly injures me and that the Proposed Final
Judgment has little to no chance of stopping Microsoft from further
injuring me nor will it noticeably reduce its illegal monopoly power.
Technology changes too fast, Microsoft has too much money, too many
lawyers, and too much industry influence (the money and influence both
aided by its monopoly) for any such complex, overly-specific, and non-
comprehensive remedy to be effective.
It is filled, with loop-holes, half-measures, inconsistencies, has no
``bite ``, and in the end it does not even address the root of
our (The People of the United States) complaint that ``Microsoft
possesses (and for several years has possessed) monopoly power in the
market for personal computer operating systems'' I ask, during these
proceedings has it not been difficult and expensive for the plaintiffs to
take Microsoft to court? Has it not been a constant tribulation, with
Microsoft's legal team using every tactic and trick to delay and hinder
(all within the law of course) our case? What makes the parties involved
believe for an instant that a 3 person panel and the future victims of
Microsoft's illegal activities will be able to hold Microsoft to the
complex terms of the PFJ?
Few companies and virtually no individuals are capable or willing to take
an entity, such as Microsoft, to court that has monopoly status in their
industry not to mention 44 billion in *current* assets (3 billion of that
in cash) [Q1-2001 $US as reported by fool.com] I understand that
neither is the US government;
``First, the United States considered litigation of the issue of
remedy in the District Court. The United States balanced the strength of
the 00022721--0002 provisions obtained in the Proposed Final Judgment;
the need for prompt relief in a case in which illegal conduct has long gone
unremedied; the strength of the parties'' respective positions in a
remedies hearing and the uncertainties inherent in litigation; and the time
and expense required for litigation of the remedy. The United States
determined that the Proposed Final Judgment, once implemented by the Court,
will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct,
preventing its recurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the
personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense
and uncertainty of a litigated remedy. Given the substantial likelihood
that Microsoft would avail itself of all opportunities for appellate review
of any non-consensual judgment, the United States estimated that a
litigated result would not become final for at least another two years ....
''
Still, that is lame. It makes me sad to be American. If my government can't
stand up to the corporate criminals of our age and win, who can? I don't
know what if any impact anything I could possibly say or add to these
proceedings would have. Nor am I so vain as to believe what I say is novel,
new, or ``the answer''. It's just that I couldn't sit by in
silence. When contemplating adequate remedy one must consider the
following: That Microsoft has hugely profited (both in monetary terms and
in market position) from its illegal activities for many years, and they
continue to profit every single day. That this is not the first time they
have acted contrary to U.S. law. That their illegal acts have destroyed
numerous companies, ruined lives, and swallowed entire markets whole.
Finally, that they have been found guilty of violating US law.
This is not about punishing Bill Gates or Microsoft because they were too
successful as I have often heard. Microsoft and it's management was not
better or smarter, they simply cheated. Personally, I believe Microsoft (or
at least its operating system portion of the company) has illegally (in
violation of the Sherman Act) ``murdered'' (run out of business)
various corporate persons among other crimes and deserves the corporate
``death penalty''. It, the OS division, should be shut-down. Its
operating system source code in all its numerous forks and varieties should
be stripped from it and placed in the public domain or under the
government's choice of open-source license. Unfortunately, for various
political and economic reasons I also believe the plaintiffs can never
successfully carry through on such a course. Still, I agree with the CIS
that, ``Microsoft has monopoly power in the market for Intel-
compatible personal computer operating systems and undertook an extensive
campaign of exclusionary acts to maintain its operating system
monopoly'' No remedy can be just & effective unless it eliminates
that monopoly. 00022721-0003
Some specific thoughts on various sections of the PFJ:
IV.B.3 Why does Microsoft get to choose one of the TC members? It makes
*no* sense. They have violated serious laws. They will try to subvert the
PFJ (I base that opinion on their actions during these proceedings, their
demonstrated contempt of the plaintiffs and original judge, as well as
their demonstrated disrespect of U.S. laws). Do not give them an advantage
by allowing them to appoint one of the TC's.
IV.B.8.e ``The TC shall report in writing to the Plaintiffs every six
months I believe these reports should be published and publicly available.
Possibly, with provisions for blacking-out/separate (non-published)
attachments for any trade secrets or other specific confidential
information.
IV.B.10 ``No member of the TC shall make any public statements
relating to the TC's activities.'' I don't believe this provision is
in our (The People of the United States) best interest.
IV.D.4.d ``No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC may
be admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any purpose,
and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in court or before any
other tribunal regarding any matter related to this Final Judgment.''
I don't understand what this provision is attempting to accomplish. I don't
see how this provision eliminates or limits Microsoft's illegal operating
system monopoly nor how it facilitates the enforcement of the PFJ.
VI.J.2 ``is Trademarked'' and VI.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.'' This provision provides for two
trivial methods with which Microsoft can evade sections of the PFJ. By not
trademarking some future ``middleware'' or renaming existing
``middleware and not trademarking it. And by using silly version
numbers. Like, say ``Windows XP'' instead of ``Windows
2002'' or 7.0.0.0.1, or ... well the possibilities are nearly
infinite.
VI.K.1 ``Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows
Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express''
This misses several (Outlook, C#, .net, etc.) But more importantly the
author fails to comprehend the futility in trying to fixate specific
(software) technology in law. It (software technology) is a spritely and a
ever-changing target. Far more ellusive than *anything* the government has
tried to legislate in the past. The government must look away from past
methods of law making in order to adapt to this new and novel issue.
Comments prompted by the CIS:
Why does the PFJ exclude server and embedded versions of MS operating
systems? Is it because the government does not deem Microsoft to have a
monopoly in these fields? Is there ``prior-restraint''
limitations to anti-
[[Page 27212]]
trust enforcement? That would be a shame. It would be hard to name a more
flagrant, consistent, and comprehensive contemporary user of illegal
monopoly power than Microsoft. I have no doubt that they are currently and
in the future will use their monopoly to illegally compete in these
markets. The government should have no doubt either and address this issue
today. Why are only the ``20 largest competitively significant
OEMs'' protected in Section III.A? Do only large companies suffer from
Microsoft's illegal monopoly? In fact, large companies are the most capable
at fighting Microsoft's illegal practices. With the prospect of facing
Microsoft's legal juggernaut small companies and individuals for the large
part can't even afford to take their grievances against Microsoft to court.
Small firms and individuals need government protection from Microsoft's
illegal activities the most.
The following point is open for debate but I believe history shows that
small firms and individuals account for the larger percentage of
``innovation'' in the computer software industry. They are the
most likely source of any threat to Microsoft's OS monopoly. Just look at
the current threats Microsoft is facing; Linux, Apache, Samba. And past
threats; Netscape was a small company, SmartDrive competitors (names lost
in time), 4DOS, DrDOS, etc.
How does defining the ill-conceived ``20 OEM's'' as being
``the highest worldwide volume of licenses of Windows Operating System
Products'' encourage or allow the erosion of Microsoft's illegal
operating system monopoly? One might imagine that the 20 largest sellers of
Windows licenses could possibly have a vested interest in perpetuating a
Windows OS monopoly as long as they themselves don't get
``squeezed'' too hard. This is not reducing the monopoly just
extending it to a trust. A trust that is hopefully still illegal under The
Sherman Act.
This statement: ``...and promote particular types of software that
could erode Microsoft's 00022721--0005 monopoly ``CIS Just makes
me mad. How wishy-washy is that? Come on, Microsoft is THE monopoly power
in the U.S. computer industry if not in the entire U.S. economy and has
been for several years. Why is the government pursuing something that
maybe, could, just might slightly reduce Microsoft's monopoly. The
plaintiffs SHOULD BE seeking a decisive, absolute, expedient remedy.
Section III.E is good in spirit. But, stipulating that Microsoft provide
protocol licenses under ``reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms'' is not sufficient. Protocols and API's should not require a
license to implement, period. But, for any communication or ``Middle-
ware'' protocol or API that Microsoft chooses to bolt a license onto
that license must be made available to any person, organization, or company
without fee, and without restriction.
In addition Microsoft should be prohibited from implementing pre-existing
API's and protocols in slightly or grossly different and/or incompatible
ways. As suggested by one of the remedies reviewed and discarded [as listed
in the CIS].
The exclusions for ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,
digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems'' are
huge. I'm only a middling software engineer and I can devise any number of
methods to render API's and/or protocols effectively useless without
portions that a half-way decent lawyer could argue fall under those
categories. Microsoft has enough middling software engineers and half-way
decent lawyers to evade much of the PFJ in such a manner.
The PFJ focuses on commercial competitors and large ones at that. This is
wrong. The Internet (and it is The Internet, ill advised or not, that the
complaint envisions as the tool to end Microsoft's OS monopoly) largely
exists and operates on software made and supported by small companies,
government agencies, and non-profits. (DNS--bind and others,
email-- sendmail and many others, FTP--many, Apache, PERL, PHP,
MySQL, Linux, various BSD flavors, and the list goes on)
I disagree with the following statement or more accurately I disagree with
the conclusion that it is the most workable / best path the government
should pursue in order to eliminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
``The formidable applications entry barrier may be eroded through
platform software known as ``middleware.''''
The concept the PFJ defines as middleware was a new market segment that
several companies (Netscape and SUN among others) attempted to create in
their desperate search for a niche in which to compete free of Microsoft's
monopoly. I believe it is a risky ploy. Not at all assured to
`erode' Microsoft's monopoly status with or with-out the aide
of the PFJ provisions.
Finally, ``The ubiquity of the Windows operating system thus induces
developers to create vastly more applications for Windows than for other
operating systems. The availability of a rich array of applications in turn
attracts consumers to Windows. A competing operating system will not
attract large numbers of users unless those users believe that there is and
will continue to be a sufficient and timely array of applications available
for use on that operating system. Software developers, however, have little
incentive to write applications for an operating system without a large
number of users.'' CIS
The above paragraph suggests several effective remedies. Namely increasing
the number of users of competing operating systems and increasing the
number of applications available for competing operating systems. The U.S.
and state governments have the power to do these things, perhaps not
directly as a restriction on Microsoft but through other means. Just make
Microsoft foot the bill. A very simple, enforceable, and in my mind just
remedy would be to have Microsoft forfeit 1/3 of it's ``current
assets'' (about 14 billion) or X billion per year for X years,
whatever. Put one billion into a trust in order fund potential future cases
against Microsoft. The rest used in any number of ways to promote serious
private and public sector threats to Microsoft's illegal operating system
monopoly.
I arrived at some of the conclusions above in part because I disagree or
find erroneous the following parts of the complaint. Most of it is just too
old and doesn't apply to the U.S. software market as it sits today. 1.3
``Because end users want a large number of applications available,
because most applications today are written to run on Windows, and because
it would be prohibitively difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to
create an alternative operating system that would run the programs that run
on Windows''
It is debatable whether most end users want a large number of applications
available. Most want; MS Office, a HTTP/HTML browser, and E-mail. With a
smattering wanting instant-messaging and file sharing. Although, game
players want large number of application(games) available. I know several
people who maintain a Window OS solely in order to play games. Everything
else they do with some other operating system.
``most applications today are written to run on Windows''
Is only true if one does themselves the great disservice of limiting their
definition of `applications' to those sold commercially by
large companies. The wine project [www.winehq.com] and Mandrake's gaming
distribution [http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/games8.0.php] demonstrate
how it is not ``prohibitively difficult, time-consuming, and expensive
to create an alternative operating system that would run the programs that
run on Windows''
Just hard and risky in the face of Microsoft's illegal monopoly. The fact
that both projects are open-source might be a clue as to effective tools
with which to eliminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly. 1.4 Follows on the
questionable points of 1.3 and is therefore questionable itself. As proof I
point to Linux in the server and other markets. Linux *is* a ``direct,
frontal assault by existing or new operating systems'' and has created
significant new markets, new companies, and huge opportunity for existing
companies to compete against Microsoft even with its illegal monopoly.
1.6 Maybe when this was written, but Microsoft eliminated this
`threat' long ago.
1.7--1.38 If the government believes this then they should really want
to limit Microsoft in the server market. Microsoft's recent and continuing
practices with Kerberos, DNS, Active Directory, and IIS demonstrate its
continued use of monopoly powers in one market to extend them into another,
(server-infrastructure / client-browsers)
It would have been nice to see some commentary and detail on why and how
the government came to believe the following remedies (taken from the CIS)
were not in the our (The People of the United States) best interest.
``A requirement that Microsoft license the Windows source code to OEMs
to enable them to modify, compile and distribute modified versions of the
Windows Operating System for certain limited purposes, such as
automatically launching Non-Microsoft Middleware, operating systems or
applications; setting such non-
[[Page 27213]]
Microsoft Middleware as the default; and facilitating interoperability
between Non-Microsoft Middleware and the Windows Operating System.''
``A requirement that Microsoft disclose the entire source code for the
Windows Operating System and Microsoft Middleware, possibly within a secure
facility for viewing and possibly without such a facility.''
``A requirement that Microsoft must carry certain Non-Microsoft
Middleware, including but not limited to the Java Virtual Machine, in its
distribution of the Windows Operating System.''
``A requirement that Microsoft manufacture and distribute the Windows
Operating System without any Microsoft Middleware or corresponding
functionality included.''
``A requirement that Microsoft continue to support fully industry
standards if it chooses or claims to adopt them or extends or modifies
their implementation.''
``requirement that Microsoft waive any rights to intellectual property
in related APIs, communications interfaces and technical information if the
Court finds that Microsoft exercised a claim of intellectual property
rights to prevent, hinder, impair or inhibit middleware from interoperating
with the operating system or other middleware.''
btw, this `Factual Background' from the CIS is false:
``Operating systems designed for Intel-compatible personal computers
do not run on other personal computers, and operating systems designed for
other personal computers do not run on Intel-compatible personal
computers'' This myth might have been perpetuated since Microsoft's
operating systems typically cannot run on platforms other than x86
compatible ones. NetBSD and Linux are two contrary examples of operating
systems that run on Intel-compatible personal computers and *do* run on
other personal computers.
Thank you for your time and opportunity to voice my comments, have a
wonderful day.
Norman J. Harman Jr.
[email protected]
San Francisco CA
This document has also been sent by 1st class US Mail to:
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
MTC-00022722
From: Cory Petkovsek
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department Of Justice,
I am writing to express my discontent over the proposed settlement between
the DOJ and Microsoft. Microsoft has clearly committed wrong action in this
country, against consumers and against other businesses. This settlement is
a bare punishment with great benefits for Microsoft. Two great benefits for
Microsoft are 1) Escape from punishment and justice. 2) The extension of
its monopoly into schools, making the poorest schools in America dependent
upon Microsoft and their products. If Microsoft is allowed to continue
without a real remedy they will both continue in their wrong actions, and
set a precedent for other large companies. For years high paid lawyers of
large companies will use Microsoft tactics and cases in defense of their
own wrong actions.
Those that will suffer from such a poor settlement are American citizens.
Immediately, everyone using or perhaps associated with other people using
Microsoft software will continue to suffer. For instance if Microsoft had
their way, MS Word documents could be opened only by MS Word, requiring
everyone to own a copy of MS Word if they are to share documents. If
Microsoft had their way, all internet websites would be viewable only by
Internet Explorer. Both of these examples are or have been real problems
experienced by me and thousands of computer users. Later, as precedents are
set, more citizens could become affected as other corporations develop and
extend their monopolies.
Please refer to your mission statement: http://www.usdoj.gov/
02organizations/index.html ``Department of Justice Mission Statement
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according
to the law, to provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling
crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, to
administer and enforce the Nation's immigration laws fairly and
effectively, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for
all Americans.''
Is the proposed settlement a real enforcement of antimonopoly law? Will
allowing Microsoft to extend its monopoly into our poorest schools
``defend the interests of the US according to the law''? Is such
a toothless settlement inline with the DOJ's commitment ``to seek just
punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior?''
I serve my company as a Network Administrator of computer systems running
both Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. In such an environment it is
very easy to compare Microsoft operating systems and products with non-
Microsoft software, as well as the companies which produce them. Microsoft
repeatedly expresses their interest and development of new plans for
securing their products. Yet each new product is found to contain many
security problems symptomatic of a flawed design (as opposed to a flawed
implementation) and false marketing. Microsoft claims to be innovative
while others are stifling their innovation. However I fail to see how
bundling products and releasing ``killer'' applications (C# a
Java killer, Internet Explorer a Netscape killer) provides innovation that
benefits the consumer.
Real competition is great for the consumer and America. However Microsoft's
intentions are wrong. They choose actions that benefit Microsoft, not the
consumer, not Microsoft AND the consumer. Their ``competitive''
practices are akin to ranchers killing all of the wolves in the forest to
protect their sheep. These actions are against the laws of nature and will
result in an out of balance ecosystem. Microsoft performs actions designed
to kill off their competitors, which currently results in an out of balance
econo-system. Many people, companies and government agencies suffer from
expensive, insecure, unstable operating systems and products (outlook), and
are nearly forced to remain with the Windows platform, paying exorbitant
prices to do so. I know a company that would like to replace some certain
Microsoft software, however are unable to do so because there is not a
viable product on non-Microsoft platforms. This is primarily due to lack of
competition, for Microsoft's monopoly also extends into the development
community as well.
Such selfish actions don't fit the mold of America well. When such selfish
actions go to the point of ``playing against the rules'', they
need to stop playing. Department Of Justice, as the playground attendant,
it is your responsibility to make sure everyone plays together nicely, and
to correct those who do not. Please keep the ideals of America strong,
unable to be watered down with handwaving and words, bypassed by lies or
broken by dollars.
Liberty and Justice for all.
Cory Petkovsek
MTC-00022723
From: Steven York
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven York
2700 Colorada Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 92606
January 24, 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,
Steven York
MTC-00022724
From: Frank Garber
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27214]]
Date: 1/24/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft monopoly hearings
I don't understand how the proposed penalty of donating MS products to
school systems keeps them from committing monopolistic practices? I want
them broken up. I want fair competition!!!
Frank Garber
MTC-00022725
From: Pastor Deterding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The Microsoft anti-trust suit has been a politically motivated witch-hunt.
Let's bring this to an end as quickly as possible and let Microsoft and all
its competitors get back to the business of improving computer technology.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Deterding
Carson City NV
MTC-00022726
From: Carlo =)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern: This proposed settlement is wrong. Why let
Microsoft come up with their own punishment? That's a ridiculous way to
settle this. Please don't let them go unscathed.
Thank you
Carlo Pitocco
MTC-00022727
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:54pm
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,
Jon Dregalla
31011 Muirfield Way
Westlake, OH 44145-5060
MTC-00022728
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:54pm
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,
jeanette Fenton
6533 6th Street
Rio Linda, CA 95673
MTC-00022729
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
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,
Linda Micka
PO 725
Merrill, OR 97633
MTC-00022730
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
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,
Paul Deterding
3363 Oreana Dr
Carson City, NV 89701
MTC-00022731
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:53pm
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,
Jeanie Holt
7027 Mozart Ct
Sun Valley, NV 89433
MTC-00022732
From: Vogel, Alan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan J. Vogel
Operation's Director St. Louis
Allegiance Telecom
Office 314 783-9339
Wireless 314 616-4440
MTC-00022732--0001
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have been a supporter of Microsoft from day one of the lawsuit against
the company. In light of the recent settlement between Microsoft and the
government, it is time to end this case and allow this great company the
chance to get back to work.
Microsoft has granted computer makers the right to remove various Windows
based systems, including Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger. What
company in history that has ever volunteered to deliberately allow removal
of its product? This provision alone in the settlement is enough to satisfy
even the most envious rival. Additionally, Microsoft will use a uniform
price list when licensing Windows out to the twenty largest computer makers
in the nation. Microsoft has compromised a great deal in this case. Not
only has Microsoft
[[Page 27215]]
agreed to more than what was asked for, but it has done so graciously and
fairly. It is time for the government to end this case and allow Microsoft
to continue making superb software and other products.
Sincerely,
Alan Vogel
2747 Danforth Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63129
cc: Representative Richard A. Gephardt
MTC-00022733
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:54pm
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,
Randy Shiner
rd-2box321-a
Dayton, PA 16222
MTC-00022734
From: Adam Hitchcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00022735
From: David Rees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:58pm
Subject:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft.
David Rees [email protected] 01/24/2002
MTC-00022736
From: Bob Ulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
It is in my opinion in the best interest of America and the world at this
time to settle the Antitrust case against Microsoft! Greed and jealousy and
politics of other companies and states are feeding this frenzy! Send a
signal to corporate America that to compete in the market place you must
build a better product than your competition, and not try to steal from
them! Microsoft has not done anything more than that which is practiced
today in any other corporation in America! Microsoft is good for America!
Please Settle This Antitrust Case Now!
Respectfully Submitted,
Bob Ulmer
3959 Normandy Dr
Owensboro, KY 42303
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00022737
From: Ron Unangst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I appreciate Microsoft and what it has done for the computer industry. I
will be sending my letter to the Attorney Generals office. I can't believe
AOL is doing this. What about their merger with Time-Warner? I think
Microsoft has done right by all of us users.
Ron Unangst
MTC-00022738
From: Linda M. Bettin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I, as a consumer, would like to see AOL back off on litagation against
Microsoft and be more constructive. For instance putting the monies that
they use in trying to sue Microsoft to better use. They could put their
heads together with Microsoft, work together to make new innovations. It
just seems like Microsoft is always trying to defend themselves in court
about one charge or another. I for one, feel like they are being persecuted
for having a superior product. Leave them alone and let them do what they
do best, developing more new software!
Thank You,
Linda Bettin
MTC-00022739
From: Alex Jacques
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am aghast that after having successfully prosecuted the anti-trust case
against Microsoft (and after having it almost entirely upheld on appeal),
the DOJ is willing to accept an incredibly weak and ineffectual
``remedy''.
The loopholes and flaws in the proposed agreement are many, but amongst the
more serious are:
1. The definitions of API, middleware and ``Windows Operating System
Product'' are much narrower than in the findings of fact or in common
usage. This opens numerous loopholes as it allows Microsoft to continue
their anti-competitive practices with products that fall outside of these
curiously limited definitions.
2. Information concerning authentication and authorization protocols need
only be given to concerns that meet Microsoft's criteria as a business.
Given that Microsoft has publicly stated that free software (e.g. Linux,
Apache, Samba) is its most serious competition, and that such software is
frequently developed outside of normal business organizations, this allows
Microsoft to stifle its most serious competitor. Any argument that for
security reasons information about authentication and authorization must
only be disseminated on a limited basis is spurious. Such arguments are
referred to as ``security through obscurity'', which has been
widely discredited in computer security circles. Indeed, the specifications
for many of the most widely used and successful security protocols (e.g.
Kerberos) are publicly available. Many computer security professionals will
not even trust those protocols that are not widely published and studied.
3. There are no requirements that Microsoft publish documentation for any
of their proprietary file formats (e.g. Word). Given that Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices have made the use of their proprietary file formats
almost universal, and that hence the ability for competing software to read
such formats is essential to the success of such a product, this allows
Microsoft to forcefully maintain its monopoly.
I urgently hope that the DOJ will reconsider, and only accept an agreement
that effectively limits Microsoft's ability to illegally maintain and
advance its monopoly.
Alexander M. Jacques
2 Carlson Ct.
Kings Park, NY 11754
[email protected]
MTC-00022740
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No No No.
Settlement should not enhance the position of the one who is supposed to be
penalized.
This is a ``trick''.
If this ``settlement'' is accepted at this present form, it's a
form of ``raping the whole public''. It's not even funny thing
like this can be even tried.
CC:Tong Wong
MTC-00022741
From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have been following the Anti-trust suits against the Microsoft
Corporation fairly closely. Being an engineer for an Internet Service
Provider, many of the issues this suit was intended to resolve are
important to me and the work I do. This is true not only for my own work in
the office, but for dealing with our customers as well.
It is the nature of Micrsoft's products, all of them, that they will work
only in conjunction with each other. Thus, if I, or one of my customers,
has need of one of any non-Microsoft products, whether Operating System,
Office Suite, or any other software product, we must, by Microsoft's very
nature, make a much larger investment in hardware to allow for these
incompatible products on an entirely different workstation. Thus, instead
of having to purchase one workstation for my small, business, I will need
to purchase two so that I can fulfill the needs of my business. All of
these products
[[Page 27216]]
are incompatible ONLY because of Micrsoft's lack of openness in the
programming needs to make them compatible. Even different Versions of the
same product are incompatible! So, since, my customer has upgraded to a
newer Microsoft product, I must do the very same, simply to be able to
properly interact with that customer. But, since I did so, all of the rest
of my customers are required to do so as well. Again, just so we can all
properly communicate. Making it possible for any one who chooses to do so,
to create software that is compatible with the most used Operating System
and Office suite in the world. Looking over the information available on
the proposed settlement of the Anti-trust suit, this is one of the most
glaring failures of the settlement, this is not possible. Though there are
statements in the proposal that seem to make this possible, there are
enormous loopholes in each one, and even contradictory statements to nearly
every one.
The largest interconnected network of computers, commonly referred to as
``The Internet'' is also dependent upon Microsoft. This
highlights the glaring issues of Security in the Microsoft Product Line. I
have not run across or used any product developed by Microsoft that has not
required a security ``fix'' within the first month, at the
outside. Because I deal with the Internet and the people who use it on a
daily basis, I am constantly evangelizing about the dangers of the
Microsoft products. Now, not only must I assist our customers with their
Internet connectivity, but I now have to be a Microsoft Security Expert so
that I can keep my own network secure and safe. Would I, because of the
liaise-faire position of Microsoft when dealing with security issues, be
able to charge back to Microsoft all of the costs associated with the time,
effort, training, and materials involved in my support of their product?
Because they choose not to?
The proposal simply changes ``HOW'' Microsoft must interact with
others. Instead of acting in a self serving, threatening, monopolistic
fashion that was not only illegal, but entirely unethical; Microsoft would
be able to act in a self serving, threatening, monopolistic fashion
sanctioned by the Federal Government. If the intent of those who brought
and pursued the suit in the first place was to simply make it legal and
easier for Microsoft to enforce and reinforce its monopolistic position,
then this proposal would succeed admirably.
Thank you for allowing me to provide some input into this process.
W. Scott Page
Sales Engineer
Internet Service Provider
Pennsylvania
MTC-00022742
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:58pm
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,
Walter Danneberg
1475 Midland Rd 4
Southern Pines, NC 28387
MTC-00022743
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:59pm
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 Solyan
4972 Webb Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80916-2231
MTC-00022744
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:59pm
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,
Geraldine Crawford
568 West Ames Road
Canajoharie, NY 13317-3229
MTC-00022745
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:00pm
Subject: Enough litigation
I really believe Microsoft has tried to do everything to satisfy the
litigants and the Department of Justice has mnade a ruling and Microsoft
has complied . . . what more do they expect . . . The
competitors have not had the technology that the public wanted
. . . they wanted the Microsoft new inovations and that is what
should count. The Competitors should go back to the drawing board and come
up with something that the public wants more than Microsoft.
MTC-00022746
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Microsoft has delayed and evaded its just settlement long enough.
Decisively end this case with Microsofts punishment. It may be fair to say
that Microsofts evassion tactics has brought the most expensive guilty
verdict money can buy. Unless the punishment phase is Microsofts just
punishment, end it. Swiftly, Justly, and not infavor of Microsoft.
Regards,
Donald Turnblade
Sincerely,
Donald Turnblade
103 N. 130th Circle
Chandler, AZ 85225
MTC-00022747
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:58pm
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,
Donna Sesler
3155 Ella Lane
Manhattan, KS 66502-2012
[[Page 27217]]
MTC-00022748
From: Akito Hayama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00022749
From: Jim (038) Debby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I remember when I wanted to buy my first PC in 1992. I called about 15
build-to-order firms such as Gateway 2000, Dell, etc. I wanted OS2 instead
of Windows--none of them could leave off Windows.
My request was met with silence from a couple of them. I did not realize
what was going on at the time, but I am 100% sure that Microsoft was
putting anti-competitive pressure on the PC builders then.
As far as Microsoft's claim that the browser is an integral part of
Windows, my first edition of Windows 95 had no browser. When I wanted to
get on the Internet in 1996, I had to go get a browser and install it.
Nothing I see in my current Windows 2000 tells me that a browser is an
essential part of an operating system.
I do not see Microsoft as any less of a monopoly than AT&T was a couple
of decades ago. I think the national interest would be best served with
more competition in the software industry.
Jim Rickey
2169 Neill Way
Hanford, CA 93230-1536
[email protected]
MTC-00022751
From: Akito Hayama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00022753
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fear that all that will happen to microsoft is a small handslap. I'm a
developer and I use MS products, but have seen how they have negatively
influenced the industry and consumers as a result. I'm just sending in my
comments to hopefully influence the settlement as not being too lenient.
Tito Martinez
MTC-00022754
From: James McPherson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Have given a lot of thought to how Microsoft should be made to pay for
their past behavior. As someone who has worked for many years in the IT
industry, and as a law student at the University of San Francisco, I feel
that the best thing for the --industry-- would be to force
Microsoft to open up its APIs and to ``open source'' Internet
Explorer. These two actions will keep Microsoft from making their Windows
products incompatible with 3rd party software thereby creating greater
competition in the area of applications. Also, opening up the APIs will
allow companies to compete with Microsoft directly because the industry
will now be able to create new operating systems which are Windows
compatible.
Breaking up Microsoft will achieve nothing but create two monopolistic
companies where only one existed before. There will be absolutely no
benefit to the consumer. It would simply be an act of revenge.
Thank you,
James McPherson
Lafayette, CA
MTC-00022755
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:02pm
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,
CARL BRAUN
249 W ARCHER STREET
JACKSBORO, TX 76458-1745
MTC-00022756
From: Margaret E Stambaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I firmly believe in the importance of competition in today's market. As
there is no competition forth coming in the software industry, everything
should be done to foster competition. For this reason, the settlement
reached with Microsoft, is not extensive enough to improve growth and
diversity in the market. Please Reconsider.
Sincerely,
Margaret Stambaugh
MTC-00022757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:01pm
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,
R. Finegan
1500A E. College Wy
#436
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
MTC-00022758
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:01pm
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,
Jesse Barrett
P.O. Box 587
Trenton, FL 32693
MTC-00022759
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:02pm
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.
[[Page 27218]]
Sincerely,
David Knight
10820 Helber Road
Logan, OH 43138
MTC-00022760
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:05pm
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 Fernandes
3079 Simas Ave
Pinole, CA 94564-1158
MTC-00022761
From: Robert Eden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a computer professional that uses a multitude of different systems. I
constantly see Microsoft abusing their dominant position to extort
excessive fees, and to squash competition. It is my understanding that the
judgment says the same.
The proposed remedies are a joke. They do little to punish Microsoft, only
hope to prevent further abuses. Since Microsoft has ignored previous
agreements curb their behavior, why does the DOJ expect this one to be any
different? There is even language that protects MS from competition with
Open-Source software!
I urge the DOJ to consider true punishment for Microsoft. Yes, it will hurt
them, but isn't that the point? Nothing can bring back the companies MS has
destroyed, but maybe others (or Open software) can be allowed to grow into
competitors.
Robert Eden
MTC-00022762
From: Dan Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
My name is Dan Martin, and I am a network administrator for a logistics
company. I am writing because I feel that the proposed settlement with
Microsoft is a poor reprimand in an anti-trust hearing with so much on the
line. Microsoft has 30 BILLION dollars in the bank, gained mostly from
sales of it's OS and Office suite applications.
Microsoft has used their 90% market share in the operating system market
(started because of an anti-trust hearing on IBM . . .) and
pushed out netscape from the market. Please look on Netcraft.com and see
the usage statistics on netscape. It used to be the highest, now it is
abysmal due to Microsoft bundling their browser with Windows.
Now Microsoft is planning on expanding into other realms. I feel that this
is OK . . . a company should be able to forage out into other
markets. However, with their photo-suite application (bundled with WinXP)
Microsoft had a scuffle (and a proposed lawsuit, if I am not mistaken) with
Kodak, because the photo software would launch automatically and not allow
the user easy access to software manufactured by another vendor. This
becomes even more important when it is found that photo software makes a
large amount of money due to sending away for photo's made by Kodak or
Fuji.
On the other hand, Microsoft paid millions for hotmail.com, for (what is
seems) the sole purpose of having users give microsoft their personal
information to be used as a ``passport''. With Microsoft's .NET
initiative, their are trying to privitize much of the internet, and
unfortunately, due to Microsoft's abysmal security policies, I cannot sign
up to use .NET, Hailstorm, or even use Passport. Microsoft leverages their
monopoly on the desktop even today. I use windows XP, and the Passport
sign-up screen has come up over a dozen times, and I have repeatedly told
the software that I do not wish to sign up, but it keeps on trying to get
me to send my personal information to microsoft. I don't need Passport to
use my computer, or the Internet, but Microsoft obviously wants me to think
that I have to.
Microsoft even tried to give 1 billion dollars in ``free''
software to underprivledged schools. Unfortunately, ``free''
software to Microsoft is just that. Free. Microsoft pays for the
development, the CD's cost less than a dollar to produce. There is a reason
Microsoft has 30 Billion in the bank. Apple computer's mainstay is
Educational sales, and that would cut a large chunk out of that. How about
microsoft purchases 1 billion dollars of Apple computer's (with Mac OSX)
and gives those to underfunded schools.
Bottom line, Microsoft is a very large company with billions of dollars in
the bank. They pushed Netscape out of buisness, and it is fairly obvious
that the anti-trust settlement proposed will do nothing to stop this
company from using their monopoly on desktop computers to drive out
competition.
It has happened with netscape. Microsoft was going to do it with Kodak, but
relented when they realized that they shouldn't push around a company with
so much name recognition.
By the way, 30 Billion dollars cash is enough for hostile takeovers of 12
to 15 fortune 500 companies.
Thanks,
Dan Martin
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022763
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:03pm
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,
George Dodds
1006 S. Carbon st.
Marion, IL 62959-1412
MTC-00022764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The Proposed Final Judgement is not sufficient--there are too many
flaws in it. Some of the flaws I see are:
--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.
Given the above, the PFJ should be scrapped and redone.
Sincerely,
Michael Deibler
Santa Clara, CA 95054
MTC-00022765
From: Ed Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
GET THE LEAD OUT AND DO YOUR JOB! HOW MANY TIMES IS M$ GOING TO GET OFF THE
HOOK?
--Ed Cramer
MTC-00022766
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like for you to have a real settlement with Microsoft. They have
been pushing there software down our throats for way to long. I use Linux
as my home OS just
[[Page 27219]]
to keep away from Microsoft. Allot of great software is available for
windows and I don't use it because I don't want to get caught in the
Microsoft trap. So I use Linux at this time and I would like to ask for you
to make it clear that a PC from A OEM can ship with any OS and the OEM not
get charged for Windows when it is not even on a computer !!!
You should also stop there browser monopoly NOW !!!! Netscape is a great
browser but many people will never see this software because of Microsoft's
way's
Thomas Wickline
MTC-00022767
From: Charles Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to strongly voice my support for the pending DOJ-Microsoft
settlement. I have been a user of Microsoft software for over 16 years,
since the first edition of the Windows OS.
In 1991, my family--myself, wife, sons and daughters and in-
laws--decided to standardize on the MS tools since we had wasted so
much on ineffective SW alternatives. We have experienced an enormous level
of satisfaction as a result of that decision and have been frustrated by
the constant level of anti-Microsoft press we are forced to witness. None
of us have any Microsoft stock so there are no self interests involved
except the confidence in the high level of quality provided by using the
Microsoft suite of products.
Please do not give in to the barrage of negative opinions offered
constantly in so many trade magazines. From our decade of experience, it is
simply inconceivable to consider that the DOJ-Microsoft is not in the best
interests of my family.
Sincerely,
Dr. Charles R. Davis
9866 Natick Road
Burke, VA 22015
703-725-0147
MTC-00022768
From: William Sween
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think Microsoft has been delt with by the courts and the Federal &
State Governments in a grossly improper way. Microsoft has helped the
development of this country in a way that no private company has ever done
before in our history. The government agencies and other companies that are
bringing suit (AOL T/W etc.) are a bunch of crybabies who are looking for a
chance to get something from Mr. Gates'' company that they have no
right to. Lets recognize Microsoft's achievements and stop persecuting
them.
William R. Sween
[email protected]
MTC-00022769
From: Xesdeeni Xesdeeni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
I have had a great deal of experience with Microsoft from the point of view
of a non-competing hardware and software developer. And even in such a non-
threatening role, we have been strong-armed by Microsoft. The propose
settlement will do nothing to alleviate the tactics Microsoft uses every
day. Mostly the indirect method of industry control has been accomplished
through the preferential price given to computer manufacturers, but only if
their PCs met the specifications Microsoft demanded. Of course, hardware
vendors are free to ignore the Microsoft specifications, but then they are
ignored by the PC manufacturers that would forfeit their discounted price
if they used non-approved parts. There are three significant issues with
the reality of allowing this situation to continue:
1. Any new innovation made by any company and included in their version of
a device that is subsequently adopted by Microsoft is made mandatory in the
next revision of their PC requirements. Obviously this removes the
advantage of an innovator beyond the first generation, and puts a burden on
competitors that may have made the judgement that they do not have the
resources to develop this innovation, or that they do not believe that the
innovation is important to their customers.
2. In many cases the original innovator may have patented their technology.
This means that competitors are forced either to develop alternate methods
of accomplishing the same thing (meaning their development time is longer
than the original developer), or to enter into painful agreements with
their competitors.
3. Because every developer of a particular device must provide all the
functionality that Microsoft requires, none of the features may have any
additional value associated with them. They must be added to the part
``for free,'' because the features don't elevate the devices
above the competition, they only allow them to catch up.
Here are some examples:
1. Our graphics chip design team was forced to create a 3-D hardware
design team, a 3-D software design team, and a 3-D test team,
so we could develop and include 3-D capabilities in our device, even
though our intended market was corporate, and our customers did not want
this capability. And because we were playing catch-up with the competition,
all of the resources dedicated to this feature could not be offset by
increasing the cost of our product. This company no longer makes graphics
chips.
2. Our modem design team was forced to add features to our modems that we
did not think were necessary for our intended customers. One such feature
is called ``distinctive ring detection.'' Distinctive ring is a
feature provided by the phone company that allows multiple phone numbers to
reach the same telephone. The ring heard on the phone differs for each
phone number, so that the customers can tell which number is being called.
The modem must detect the differing rings as well, so that it can be
programmed to respond only on a particular phone number. The miniscule
number of people in the whole country with distinctive ring is only dwarfed
by the number of those people who receive incoming phone calls for their
modem. Yet this is a requirement for every modem that gets Microsoft's seal
of approval. Those few people would likely have been willing to pay a bit
more for this feature, if we deemed it worth our effort to even do the
development for our mass-market product. But Microsoft forced us to do this
work whether we wanted to or not, and then set us up so that we could not
ask any more for this product, because everyone else had the feature as
well.
3. During development of a new video feature for our graphics chips, we
could not interest Microsoft in supporting the new capabilities. However,
our customers were concerned that if others added the feature and there was
no standard way of accessing this feature across all the brands, they would
have difficulty using or supporting the feature. So we created an interface
that we shared with our competitors. We did all the leg work, wrote
drivers, documentations, and held a development forum to which we invited
all of the competitors. Once we had drummed up enough interest in the
industry, Microsoft decided to add support for the feature to Windows. Of
course everything they did was completely incompatible with the work we had
done. They did however, steal all of the knowledge and hard-fought lessons
from our interface, and also wooed away one of our engineers in the
process. Our company gained nothing by having done all this work, but we
had no choice but to move to Microsoft's interface and lose all our work.
4. Further development of the above-mentioned video feature ran into an
issue involving the interface between the applications using the interface
and our drivers talking to our hardware. Microsoft defined the interface
through which application developers would communicate to our drivers, but
in this case they had no need to write any code. However, when both
application developers and driver writers who had been invited to a
development event at Microsoft asked (together) that the interface be
changed to fix some problems that both groups were hitting, Microsoft said
``No.'' That feature is still present on every graphics chip, but
it is almost never used any more. However, it is still a requirement to
receive Microsoft's stamp of approval.
I could go on, but the pattern should be obvious. We were not competing
with Microsoft, but they still did things that are the very definition of
anti-competitive. Of course, they are pitting non-competing companies
against one-another, so the negative effects are not obvious at all. Any
solution proposed so far is miles from one that will correct this type of
industry-wide manipulation and destruction.
In an Old West traveling carnival, they used to display a bowl of boiling
liquid sitting atop a block of ice. The sign said ``the Backwards
Element,'' as if to imply that the liquid boiled because the ice
cooled it. The liquid was in fact liquid nitrogen. The ice wasn't causing
it to boil, it was slowing the boiling. People believe that the computer
industry is better because of Microsoft. But in fact it is better in spite
of Microsoft.
[[Page 27220]]
Without proper and significant punishment, they will only grow more
arrogant and manipulative.
And the sad truth is that splitting them into 5 pieces (Desktop O/S, Server
O/S, Portable O/S, Applications, and Services) and forcing them to play by
the same rules as everyone else will actually benefit them.
They will actually be forced to develop O/Ss that don't crash, applications
that don't use up tons of system resources, and services that make sense
for the masses.
Anonymous (for fear of Microsoft's backlash in ``their''
industry).
MTC-00022770
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:05pm
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,
donna wheeler
14429 s. gray
cheney, WA 99004
MTC-00022771
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:05pm
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,
Paul Miller
P.O. Box 417
Utica, OH 43080
MTC-00022772
From: Kris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Getting Away with Murder
Microsoft has systematically killed free market competition in the software
marketplace. Please don't give them permission to rape and pillage in the
education market, with their ``big software giveaway.''
My husband and I both work in Silicon Valley's high tech industry, and we
continue to be amazed at how they stifle creativity in the marketplace.
First, my husband worked for SGI on pen-based computing. No outside
ventures would fund their company as a separate entity because they were
afraid of Microsoft's CE operating system, targeted at palm-sized
computers. They killed this SGI division, then hired away the best
technical brains from this company.
Now he works at TiVo, a personal digital television recorder, and he's
again positioned against Microsoft. Microsoft continues to shovel ill-
gotten operating system gains into their Ultimate TV division. They can
afford to lose money for YEARS, virtually crushing innovative start ups
like TiVo. I first worked with Netscape and watched Microsoft crush them.
And now I consult for Apple, and I resent, on a daily basis, that I'm
forced to use a Microsoft browser and Word Processor and mail package. No
Apple developer dares to enter these Microsoft-dominated markets, so we are
stuck with the mediocre Microsoft software solutions indefinitely.
Thank God for Apple's innovation. So please don't give Microsoft license to
kill Apple in the education sector.
Respectfully,
Kris Newby
MTC-00022773
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:12pm
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,
Thomas Palmer
235 Reaves Ln.
Adamsville, TN 38310
MTC-00022774
From: Dennis Sosnoski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
In a prior email I expressed my concern that the proposed DOJ settlement
with Microsoft is inadequate and ineffective. Here are my recommendations
to the Court for a settlement which would serve the purposes of (1)
eliminating the benefits to Microsoft of past illegal activity, (2)
restoring competition to the marketplace, and (3) guarding against future
illegal activities. Bear in mind that these are written from the standpoint
of a software developer and are mainly concerned with the technology issues
involved.
1. Microsoft should be required to reverse the present integration of
Internet Explorer into the operating system software. If the company wishes
to include functions in the operating system which use a web browser they
should be required to define a public API to be used by the operating
system for accessing the web browser. This will allow the owner of the
system to choose any browser which supports that API, eliminating any
arguments that Internet Explorer is a ``required'' component of
the operating system.
2. Many other types of applications beyond the browser are now being
``integrated'' by Microsoft into the operating system. These
include messaging software, multimedia software, and email software.
Microsoft supplies their implementations of these functions with the
operating system and makes it difficult or impossible to remove these
implementations. In addition to limiting customer choice this also creates
security vulnerabilities to the consumer, with no recourse under current
law. As an extension of activities already found to be illegal these
activities should also be stopped.
The court should appoint a technical overseer of the company who will
monitor their actions in adding functions to the operating system and
determine which additions are really separate applications (i.e., software
functions which could plausibly be handled equally well by programs
installed separately from the operating system). For any additions found to
be applications the company should be required to make the components
completely removable, with public APIs if the application is used by the
operating system (as for Internet Explorer in 1, above). These public APIs
should be required to be published at least six months prior to any
shipment of a Microsoft product using the APIs; if an API is changed by
Microsoft after initial publication a new six month interval will apply
from the time the change is published. Microsoft should have the right to
appeal the decisions of the overseer as to which components are
applications, but those decisions should be in force while any appeals are
in progress. Microsoft should not be allowed to ship any new operating
system, version of an existing operating system, or update to an existing
operating system until
[[Page 27221]]
the technical overseer has had the opportunity to review the changes
(including comment from the public) and determine which changes are
actually added applications. Outside parties should also have the right to
appeal the decisions of the overseer if they feel these decisions are
contrary to the settlement.
3. All APIs used by Microsoft applications (including those additions to
the operating system which the technical overseer decides are really
separate applications) should be subject to the six month publication rule.
This should also apply to all file formats and communications protocols
used by Microsoft products.
Microsoft should be required to waive any patent or other intellectual
property rights to these APIs, formats, and protocols in order to allow
free and open competition with their monopoly operating system and related
products. They should also be prohibited from circumventing this
requirement by licensing intellectual property rights from a third party
which they can then use in their products.
The only exceptions to these rules should be for cases where (1) Microsoft
needs to license intellectual property rights in order to compete in a
market, or (2) full disclosure of an API, format, or protocol would create
an unavoidable security vulnerability to the users. It's difficult to see
how (2) could ever apply, since if there is a vulnerability in an API,
format, or protocol it can normally be corrected by a change to that API,
format, or protocol, but if Microsoft is able to prove such a situation to
the satisfaction of the technical overseer this should be allowed as an
exception. Here again, both Microsoft and outside parties should be allowed
to appeal the decisions of the overseer.
4. If Microsoft ships products in violation of the settlement terms they
should be required to issue an apology and partial refund to every
purchaser of the violating product, including end users who purchased the
product indirectly. The amount of the partial refund should be determined
by the technical overseer in keeping with the severity of the violation but
should be a minimum of five percent of the retail cost of the product. In
cases of deliberate violations of the settlement terms the company should
also be subject to a fine which is a minimum of all profits to the company
from the sales of the violating product during the term of the violation
(exclusive of the partial refund to customers). Any company personnel
involved in a deliberate violation should also be prosecuted for Contempt
of Court.
5. On the licensing front, Microsoft should be made to post an public list
of operating system prices to OEMs based solely on volume and operating
system version. They should be required to make available versions of all
operating systems with and without bundled or integrated applications, with
price differences which reflect Microsoft's development costs for the
bundled or integrated applications vs the base operating system. The
technical overseer should have the right to approve or modify the prices to
reflect this agreement, if necessary with the help of accounting audits.
Microsoft should not be allowed to delay or refuse sales to any party at
the published rates except for valid business reasons such as nonpayment.
Any such refusal should require full documentation, with heavy fines and
damages paid to the party involve if Microsoft is found to have acted
improperly. Any threats by Microsoft to delay or refuse sales should be
considered the same as an actual delay or refusal. Microsoft should be
specifically prohibited from delaying or refusing sales on the basis of any
alterations to the operating system (such as addition of other software
components, or removal of Microsoft-supplied components) performed by the
OEM, though they should be allowed to require the OEM to inform the user of
any such alterations.
6. All costs of the enforcement of the agreement should be paid by
Microsoft. This includes all costs associated with the technical overseer,
including costs of audits and technical consulting. I believe these
recommendations are fair and equitable, and hope the Court will consider
them in arriving at a final settlement for this case.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Sosnoski
President
Sosnoski Software Solutions, Inc.
14618 NE 80th Pl.
Redmond, WA 98052
MTC-00022775
From: Mark Derricott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
Mark Derricott
117 Standart Street #1
Syracuse NY, 13210
1/24/2002
MTC-00022776
From: Patrice Grant-Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a bad idea. If you look at the software companies today
there are how many? Not many, why? who can com compete with Microsoft's
states. And it does not fit in to the best man wins story when you can't
fight against the giant money. Also, in what part of the government or the
United states it say that we can build the operating system, and then make
the software that works with it, too. This isn't possible if you are
working in the Government. I think it has the name of conflict of interest.
Is because the people in charge are interested in the money that one can
get when you are on board with the giant. This software company does not
even give the consumers a choice of any software products that one wants.
Look at any computer that you buy in the store. It comes loaded with the
operating system and guess what many other software products installed in
the system. And of, need a browser, here is one too.
This case is sound more and more like the OJ trial.
concerned consumer
MTC-00022777
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:14pm
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,
Candice Karner
306 S. Highland
Rockford, IL 61104
MTC-00022778
From: Lance Lavandowska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:12pm
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft Settlement Proposal
As a long time user of Microsoft products, I don't believe that the
proposed settlement goes far enough in remedying the underlying business
practices MS employs, nor does the ``enforcement'' team of 3
persons have enough authority or scope to enforce those remedies. The
issues raised by the ``objecting'' 9 states better represent my
position. In particular, I want to state that the suggestion that Microsoft
donate products to public schools to be offensive and contrary to any
punishment that may be meted out against the company. If any donations are
to be made to public schools, they should be in the form of hard currency,
for the schools to spend as they please (on InformationTechnology).
Thank you,
Lance Lavandowska,
Shoreview MN
www.Brainopolis.com
MTC-00022779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:15pm
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
[[Page 27222]]
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,
Victor Askman
95-455 Kuahelani Ave., #102
Mililani, HI 96789-1448
MTC-00022780
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:16pm
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,
Lois Hamilton
1210 NE 181st Ave, Apt #21
Portland, OR 97230-6761
MTC-00022781
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:15pm
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,
Ben Alexander
346 South 9th Street
Montrose, CO 81401
MTC-00022782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:15pm
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,
Darrell Million
1506 Shelby St.
Higginsville, MO 64037-1326
MTC-00022783
From: Samuel Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:18pm
Subject: Aol suit vs. Microsoft
I feel that AOL's suit against Microsoft, claiming that Internet Explorer
illegally harmed Netscape's Navigator browser is without merit and should
be turned down. I purchased a computer package that came with Netscape
Navigator one year plus two months ago. After learning and working with
Nets. Nav. for 9 months, I voluntarily switched to Internet Explorer and
much prefer it. IE's success is based on market preference and support by
the public.
MTC-00022784
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:15pm
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,
RUSSELL REED
9 Coal Street, P.O. Box 103
MIDDLEPORT,, PA 17953-0103
MTC-00022785
From: Darren Woody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a long time user in the computing industry. I think the measures taken
to date to punish Microsoft for its monopolistic stranglehold on the
technology industry is by and far to light of a punishment for a
corporation that has more money than most countries of the world do. A slap
on the wrist is not acceptable. Having Microsoft donate product worth a
billion dollars only furthers the monopoly that Microsoft has. The
Punishment for Microsoft needs to be something very clear and painful both
financially and ethically. It needs to send a clear message that let's them
know that there practices have stifled innovation. Microsoft is only happy
with innovative products as long as they have come from Microsoft. The
world has begun to accept Windows as an innovative platform, despite the
fact that there are several other operating systems out there that in most
cases offer a better user environment, are more secure and not riddled with
errors or ``Backdoors'' in the coding. Microsoft will never try
to make a perfect product, otherwise the entire IT industry as we know it
today would be out of work. I would guess Microsoft will never make that
perfect product, probably because the company makes as much money on
supporting the garbage they have hoisted upon society as they do making the
product in the first place. Just my 2 Cents worth. Please consider a
tougher sentence and do the right thing for consumers everywhere.
Sincerely,
Darren Woody
Darren Woody
Information Services
RF Code Inc.
480-969-2828
[email protected]
MTC-00022786
From: Britton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement does adequately punish past MS
transgressions or prevent future ones.
Three things in particular bug me:
1. MS claim to the right to withold API information in the interest of
security. Anyone who knows anything about computer security will tell you
that protocol secrecy is the worst way to try to get it. This looks like
just another way for MS to keep critical information out of the hands of
competitors.
2. The oversight system looks very poor. I'm sure there are people other
than MS who would agree to feed and house these people.
3. There is no reason to put an upper limit on the time to correct things.
The problem is ongoing.
Britton Kerin
GNU GPL: ``The Source will be with you... always.''
MTC-00022787
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27223]]
Date: 1/24/02 4:17pm
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,
Dick Gillespie
6456 Warren Drive
Norcross, GA 30093
MTC-00022788
From: Paul Raymond Busta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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. This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long
enough.
Please put an end to it once and for all and let us all get back to
business.
Thank you,
Paul R. Busta
[email protected]
MTC-00022789
From: Jeremy White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been
converted to attachment.]
To Whom it May Concern:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the proposed
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
Background:
I am the founder and CEO of CodeWeavers, Inc. CodeWeavers provides products
and services that enable our customers to use Windows technology in non
Windows environments, such as Linux. We use and support an open source
technology known as the Wine Project. The Wine Project is an implementation
of the Microsoft Windows API. It can run on top of a variety of operating
systems, notably the Linux operating system. It provides two important
functions: it allows end users to run existing Windows applications on
Linux, and it allows Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) to convert their
applications from Windows to Linux quickly and easily.
A fully completed Wine Project would have two dramatic impacts on the
marketplace. First, if combined with a Linux operating system, it would
create a fully Windows compatible version of Linux. This Linux and Wine
combination would serve as a direct and effective competitor to Microsoft's
Windows Operating System products. Second, if Wine realized its promise, it
would be trivial for an ISV with a Windows product to create a version of
their application for Linux, thereby lowering the application barrier to
competition described in the findings of fact. Therefore, I believe that an
examination of the proposed remedy and its impact on the Wine Project is
extremely relevant in determining how effective the proposed remedy will
be.
The Wine Project is an entirely volunteer effort. It is organized via a
central web site, www.winehq.com. While my company tries to play a central
role in helping develop Wine, the Wine Project itself cannot reasonably be
called a business or even a non profit organization. Specific Failing in
the Proposed Settlement: First of all, as I understand the proposed relief,
the only sections with direct bearing on Wine are sections III.D and III.E.
These sections would seem to attempt to insure that third parties would
have access to information about Microsoft APIs and communications
protocols.
1. III.D. API Disclosure
It is completely unclear how this requirement differs from what they do now
voluntarily. The Windows API is incredibly complex and very difficult to
document. One competitive barrier Microsoft uses is that they document most
of their API, but omit certain key pieces of information. However, an
omission of information is nearly impossible to prove. Further, there seems
to be some belief that if third parties have access to the source code, the
documentation will somehow magically improve. I do not see how this could
be--reviewing the source code and correcting the documentation will be
a monumental task, and no third party that I know has the resources or
ability to do this.
2. III.J.2 Exceptions
This section specifically excludes Wine from participating in the benefits
of III. MS has so ruthlessly exterminated all business competitors, that
the only viable competition comes from volunteer efforts. Yet III.J.2
easily allows Microsoft the latitude to exclude Wine Project volunteers
from the benefits of these remedies. The Wine Project certainly would fail
to meet ``reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business'', because
it is not a business.
In fact, III.J.2 could be read such that Microsoft could actually refuse to
provide MSDN information to volunteers working on the Wine Project. Thus,
as a result of III.J.2, Microsoft would have the ability to cut off
information given to projects such as Wine, and this remedy may actually
prove harmful to the Wine Project.
Omissions in the Proposed Settlement:
A major component in the Findings of Fact discussed the ``Applications
Barrier to Entry'' (section III. B.). The Findings of Fact go on to
discuss that if a competitive implementation of the Windows API could be
created, it would go a long way towards easing this barrier. It also goes
on to posit that the task is too difficult to be viable. However, Wine has
made major strides in recent years. Wine is now able to run many Windows
applications, and has been used to port some major software systems
(including Corel WordPerfect Office and Borland's Kylix products).
Yet nothing in the proposed settlement does anything to encourage the
development of competitive systems such as Wine. I think it is unacceptable
that the court find that a major barrier to true competition is unsolvable,
because I believe there are several actions the court can take that would
squarely address the issue, as follows:
1. Actively, not passively, document the Windows API
As touched upon in my comments, above, if a well funded, neutral third
party organization was created or hired to research and fully document the
Windows API, this would dramatically accelerate the ability of the Wine
Project team members to compete with Microsoft.
We spend an enormous amount of our time and energy deducing the correct
behavior of the Windows API through difficult trial and error processes,
simply because the documentation is not complete enough. This could be
rectified if a well funded third party produced a clear and complete set of
documentation. In fact, there is already a European (ECMA-234) standard for
the Windows API. This third party could enhance and extend this
specification.
2. Protect people who would use Wine from retaliation by Microsoft.
One of the reasons that Wine has not been further adopted is that Microsoft
has successfully used ``Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt'' to scare
business managers away from using non Microsoft solutions.
For example, when selecting a method of porting a major application to
Linux, one prospect of mine was comparing Wine 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 the 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. For my customer, the risk of crossing Microsoft was too great to
even contemplate using Wine. I think it is very telling that the attorney
for the dissenting States is having to promise protection from retaliation
to all of its potential witnesses, and even with that is having trouble
finding people to testify.
So, my suggestion would be to amend the remedy to explicitly protect
projects such as
[[Page 27224]]
Wine, Samba, and Kerberos from the offensive use by Microsoft of its
patents. Specific Harm to Consumers For the most part, I have focused my
comments on the Wine Project. Let me take a moment and explain how the
failure of the Wine Project directly harms consumers.
It is easy, but wrong, to argue that having a single operating system be
the standard desktop operating system is actually a benefit to consumers.
This argument is like asserting that having only one car model would be
easier for mechanics. How would you feel if your only choice was a Yugo?
What's the harm, you can drive anywhere you want to, right?
Having viable, competitive operating systems has the potential to
dramatically improve the benefit consumers receive from their operating
system. For example, having an alternate operating system would mean that
corporations would not be shut down periodically by email viruses. Having
an alternate operating system might mean that a school system could realize
dramatic savings by using Free software, and perhaps accepting some more
limited functionality.
The single largest barrier standing in the way of real competition is the
applications barrier to entry. People don't select an operating system
based on its features; they select it based on what applications it runs.
If Wine succeeds, then that barrier will be greatly reduced. By making sure
that the remedy chosen to correct Microsoft's monopolist behaviour enables
projects such as Wine to succeed, you insure that the market will soon see
viable alternative operating system choices, and consumers will be able to
reap the benefits in more stable, secure, and cost effective computing
environments.
Closing Comments
I have focused my comments here on how the proposed settlement would affect
the Wine Project.
I feel that the proposed settlement has other serious flaws. However, I
felt it best if I focused on my area of expertise, and let others speak for
me on more general issues.
To that end, I would like to echo the comments made by Dan Kegel, whose
comments can be viewed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I
strongly support his overall comments on the proposed settlement and would
like to add my voice to his.
To whoever is reading this, I realize that you have had to wade through a
lot of material. I very much appreciate your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Jeremy P. White
CEO, CodeWeavers, Inc.
MTC-00022789 0005
MTC-00022790
From: michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In order for the Proposed Final Judgement in this case to level the playing
field for application developers and for operating system developers, it
must --enforce--:
1) Full and timely release of the Windows API (and modifications over time)
to the developer community. Timely in this case means that the developers
have enough time to make modifications to their application to conform to
changes in the API and to release those changes at the same time the OS is
released.
2) Hardware providers must be able to ship Intel based systems with the OS
of the customers choice without having to pay a fee to Microsoft if Windows
is --not-- on the system.
3) Microsoft must make full disclosure of Intellectual Property to which it
claims rights. This enables developers to correctly identify what ideas are
theirs and which have encumberances from Microsoft.
Please make sure that the final judgement is both punative, and encourages
innovation in the software industry by allowing equal access to customers.
Michael Roberts
Software Engineer
No animals were harmed in the creation of this message, though the english
language was slightly bruised.
MTC-00022791
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:20pm
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,
John Romer
7033 Pelican Island Dr.
Tampa, FL 33634-7422
MTC-00022792
From: John Jesmer
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment response from John Jesmer, Engineering Technician employed
by the City of Colorado Springs, CO
[email protected]
The Department of Justice has found MicroSoft Corporation guilty of
anticompetetive practices. Suggested penalties and remedies, which appear
to benefit private software customers, may overlook the damages incurred by
state and federal governments (the case originated from several state
attorneys-general).
Local and state governments are legally bound to purchase goods and
services under competetive bidding practices, or be held liable to the
taxpaying public. As MicroSoft has absorbed or driven competitors out of
business, governments now purchase software (with maintenance and upgrades)
from an exclusive monopoly which is also the highest bidder. Where all
other purchasing complies with standard public notice procedures, software
that is included with new hardware is now concealed from open public
records. Freedom Of Information Act inquiries on the cost of operating
systems and software upgrades for existing hardware are frequently ignored,
violating public disclosure law. This, in turn, encourages MicroSoft to
increase prices at will and with complete immunity to free market forces.
The resultant waste of taxpayer funds prevents governments from addressing
urgent public safety and infrastucture maintenance needs. Free and open
source software alternatives, where they exist, are excluded from the
public bid process, due to real or perceived incompatibility with MicroSoft
formats.
This respondant suggests the following remedies when addressing MicroSoft
monopoly, particularly with respect to the taking of Public Funds:
1. Require the use of standard government bid documents and public
advertisement/award procedures for all hardware, software, computer
maintenance and software upgrades whenever such procurement involves public
funding or tax revenue.
2. Require vendors to itemize their bids, showing clear distinctions
between the price of each software, operating system software, and
networking and internet software. In no case should the price of software
be included with hardware purchase. This should not, however prevent volume
discounting of any of the above software or hardware. Neither should it
prevent the token listing of discounted and zero-cost software and
software-inclusive bundles, providing that EVERY specific product is
itemized, and all software is made available separately from hardware at
the same price as pre-installed software on new hardware.
3. Require all vendors to list hardware requirements, as well as
compatiblity issues between MicroSoft and other commercial software, and
require the inclusion of Open Source (freely distributed) software
comparisons, where known.
4. Require vendors to list, and to offer support for all known commercial
and open-source software on bids. Where a vendor is unable to list
competetive alternatives, require the purchaser to consider bids from no
less than two other vendors.
5. When served Freedom Of Information Act inquiries, allow government
officials an amnesty period to resolve multiple-license software violations
of MicroSoft User License restrictions. Encourage governments to solicit
commercial and open-source alternatives to MicroSoft operating systems,
internet browsers, office productivity and specialty software.
6. Remove penalties and protect government employees (individuals and
groups) from predice for suggesting, installing or using non-MicroSoft
products as alternative tools in their respective fields of employment.
[[Page 27225]]
espectfully submitted,
John Jesmer
MTC-00022793
From: Steve Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
This e-mail responds to a request for public comments by the Court hearing
the case U.S. v. Microsoft as part of the penalty phase of that litigation.
Two factors insure Microsoft's de facto monopoly of the Operating System
market:
1. Most people, businesses and government entities use Microsoft operating
systems and associated office products. I must communicate with them. If I
cannot communicate, I will suffer economic loss. This is commonly referred
to as a network effect and Microsoft has brilliantly exploited it.
2. Microsoft has kept its software file formats and interfaces secret. As a
result, competing software developers cannot create programs that interact
with Microsoft products in a fully functional way. Thus, an overwhelming
majority of computer users have no choice but to use the Microsoft OS and
associated office products. It is my belief, based on observation of
Microsoft's past actions, they now wish to extend their reach beyond the PC
desktop to control networking protocols for the Internet and act as its
gate keeper. This is their ``.NET'' initiative. This would have
devastating consequences for the U.S. economy and security. Microsoft has
stifled innovation by its monopolistic practices. Microsoft products are
notorious for their lack of security and vulnerability to attack by the
technically incompetent.
I propose these remedies:
1) All specifications for present and future Microsoft file formats and
Operating System Application Programming Interfaces (API) should be made
public. This will help insure that any data or documentation I create will
still be available to me in the future. It will also allow others to create
programs that can meaningfully compete with Microsoft products. These
specifications must be publicly available and made part of the public
domain. Restriction to ``commercial'' entities is simply wrong.
Open Source software initiatives should also be allowed to make use of this
information. I believe this is essential to insure the long-term the
availability and security of my data.
2) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in the public
domain and approved by an independent standards organization. I suggest the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Already I see
Microsoft limiting access to web sites for users not using Internet
Explorer. This remedy would help prevent Microsoft from partitioning the
Internet into Microsoft and non-Microsoft spheres.
3) Microsoft products should not be bundled as a hidden cost of buying a
computer. The choice of buying a computer without any Microsoft products
must be present. The real cost of Microsoft products should be presented to
the consumer. Without this, there will not be meaningful competition in the
OS marketplace.
4) Microsoft should be prevented from entering into exclusive arrangements
with computer vendors. These arrangements have been used as rewards and
punishments of computer vendors in the past and serve only to maintain
monopoly status for Microsoft.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Jacobs
[email protected]
--
Steve Jacobs
www.trinidadusa.net
Steve Jacobs & Associates
Trinidad, CO US
MTC-00022794
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:20pm
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,
David Ehrlichman 105 Fox Hollow Clinton, NC 28328-3104
MTC-00022795
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:20pm
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,
wanda richburg
36239 clear lake drive
eustis, FL 32736
MTC-00022796
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:21pm
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,
barclay robertson
po box 787
seven lakes, NC 27376-0787
MTC-00022797
From: James W. Lytle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Quite frankly, I expected you to actually do something! I am more than
disappointed by your current performance. I would hope that under what I
thought would be decent leadership, something would get done, but I suppose
that is hoping for too much out of Washington. Microsoft builds an
extremely shabby product, and I should know. I am one of those who has to
support it each and every day. If Microsoft had been penalized for unfair
business practices when they actually began happening, then there would
have been some real competition. As it is we are fortunate that Microsoft
hasn't just gone ahead and sued the creators of Linux for creating an OS
without Redmond's consent. Come on! Get busy and do something. You and I
both know Microsoft is using business practices that should not be
tolerated, in order to further their company. After all, AT&T did the
same thing, and they got broken up. What about Microsoft?!?
James W. Lytle, CCAI, CCNA, MCP
Information Services Director
Gordon Cooper Technology Center
1 John C. Bruton Blvd.
Shawnee, OK 74804
(405) 273-7493 x286
(405) 878-5736 (fax)
(405) 502-6189 (pgr)
[email protected]
MTC-00022798
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 27226]]
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,
Jan Erdman
922 W. Packard Street
Appleton, WI 54914-3846
MTC-00022799
From: Lauri K
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs/madams,
The recent progress in the Microsoft anti-trust proceedings has been
alarming. The court's decision to move away from a structural remedy was,
to us, absolutely horrifying, and it looks to us like Microsoft's pushes
toward a settlement beneficial to them will harm this industry globally. We
also feel that the court's proposed final judgement does not take into
account details such as Microsoft's anticompetitive licensing terms, and
contains misleading definitions and information. Gone are the days of old-
fashioned competition that drives competing parties to produce, develop ?
and most importantly, innovate. Microsoft has been granted the right to
kill innovation and healthy competition by becoming a bloated behemoth of
information technology. The PFJ does not remedy this. It is severely
lacking. A comprehensive listing of details that are missing from the PFJ
can be found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html ? a thorough
analysis of the PFJ and its failings is located at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html Everything Microsoft does is to become dominant, to
gain a monopoly ? which is what it in all honesty already possesses. While
Microsoft argues that the sheer survival of companies such as Apple is
sufficient proof that there is no Microsoft monopoly, we at MacZ Software
as Apple Macintosh developers must say this is not true. On paper, one can
walk into an Apple retail location and pick up a Macintosh computer, and
everything looks fine. On paper.
The truth is, the Macintosh is losing market share. A few years ago, it was
at 5 percent worldwide. It has now dropped to a mere three percent.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's Windows platform has gained market share. This is
truly worrying. Despite all acts against Microsoft's obvious attempts to
become the one and only choice in the operating system market, in the
Internet browser market and in the media player market, Windows, and all of
the tied-in products, such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player,
have not only stood their ground, but also gained share.
The acts Microsoft has played out and the way it has misused its massive
market share clearly violate the Tunney Act, and as Microsoft has tied
their products ? which are very much unrelated to each other ? closely
together to have the end user use only Microsoft tools in the markets in
which the company operates, their competition is in a legally unfair
situation. If this continues, not only will the Macintosh market be
destroyed due to Microsoft's unlawful conduct, it will also wipe out lots
of Macintosh developers, such as our company. Without Microsoft's unlawful
push for supremacy, the Macintosh platform, among other small platforms,
would enjoy a much healthier market share.
Microsoft's conduct is harmful not only in the United States, but also
internationally. It is high time for someone to clip their proverbial wings
and bring balance and competition back into the marketplace.
Yours sincerely,
Lauri Kieksi
Director of Design
MacZ Software
[email protected]
http://www.maczsoftware.com
MTC-00022800
From: Lloyd Kvam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a software developer who depends upon a healthy technology
infrastructure to make my living. Microsoft's practices have hurt that
infrastructure.
My opinion is that Microsoft should be split into five entities:
Operating Systems
Internet Software (IE, Outlook, IIS)
Business Software (Office Suite)
Consumer Software (games, Encarta, etc.)
Miscellaneous (MSN, HotMail, XBox, etc.)
--
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp.
1 Court Street, Suite 378
Lebanon, NH 03766-1358
voice:
603-443-6155
fax:
801-459-9582
MTC-00022801
From: David B. O'Donnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I STRONGLY oppose the settlement Microsoft is proposing. It does NOTHING to
address the established fact that they are a monopoly, and in fact does a
great deal to further entrench them in the position of crushing
competition. --
David B. O'Donnell
MTC-00022802
From: Thomas Skidmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It doesn't seem to me that the proposed settlement is in the best interest
of the public, nor does it adequately punish for past anticompetetive
practices, or prevent further ones.
While I cannot wade through the legalese of the entire settlement fast
enough to form a point by point argument for this, I do know that the
settlement has been progressively watered down to the point of being a mere
slap on the wrist.
If this is truly a government of by and for the people, do not pass the
settlement in its current form. The peoples'' best interest has been
replaced with the interest of the Microsoft Corporation... thanks for
listening,
Thomas Skidmore
(Columbus, OH)
MTC-00022803
From: Lyric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I'd like to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I believe the settlement must not be adopted without
significant revision; it has several major problems, detail on many of
which can be found in Dan Kegel's analysis available at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
In particular I'd like to highlight that as a software developer myself,
many of the proposed provisions do not help the situation, and in some
cases even hinder interoperability and compatibility with Microsoft's
products. Definitions such as ``API'' and ``Microsoft
Middleware'' are so narrow that many APIs and versions of Windows are
not covered at all; requirements and documentation disclosures are not
nearly broad enough and do not serve their intended purpose--for
example, the proposed settlement requires disclosure of API documentation,
but prohibits competitors from using it to make their operating systems
Windows-compatible. Many important aspects of Microsoft's monopoly are left
unaddressed; for example, disclosure of Microsoft Office file formats is
not required.
The proposed settlement also fails to prohibit intentional
incompatibilities and anticompetitive OEM practices that Microsoft has
historically used against its competition.
This judgment is not firm, clear, or broad enough, and should not be
adopted without addressing these problems.
Thank you,
John Stoneham
eOriginal, Inc.
MTC-00022804
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:22pm
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
[[Page 27227]]
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,
Gloria Ehrlichman
105 Fox Hollow
Clinton, NC 28328-3104
MTC-00022805
From: ModernBingo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:19pm
Subject: $$$ Do you like to win CASH? $$$
MTC-00022806
From: Eric Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
To whom it may concern,
It has been clear for years that Microsoft1s practices are detrimental in
many ways to the American spirit of innovation and fair business practice.
Microsoft has repeatedly acted against smaller scale software developers1
right to develop innovative and useful alternatives to their problematic
Windows system or even to exist..
I urge you to continue to take strong positions in the Microsoft case, to
send the message that such monopolies are un-American in every regard and
will not be tolerated.
Free enterprise rests on high moral behaviors whether voluntary or upheld
by our legal system.
Respectfully,
E Clark
MTC-00022807
From: Eric Pollitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not support the DOJ allowing Microsoft off the hook so easily.
Microsoft is a monopoly and they illegally use their monopoly to kill off
any competitor that gets in their way.
Microsoft uses the Windows operating system as a means to bundle a
competing application and thus distributes their software freely onto over
90% of all desktop computers. For example, Microsoft bundles it1s Internet
service, MSN, with each copy of Windows. Of course, AOL is a competitor of
MSN, but to have the same access to Windows users, AOL has to pay Microsoft
a large sum of money as well as make deals with each and every PC vendor
(e.g., Compaq). AOL also has to distribute millions of copies of AOL to
entice users to install their software.
For Microsoft to compete with AOL, what does they have to do? Next to
nothing! There are no deals to be made with PC vendors, nor any CD1s that
need to be mailed out to the masses. No, Microsoft only has to bundle MSN
with Windows.
Let's not forget what this antitrust case is about! It1s about Microsoft
illegally bundling software with Windows, as well as it1s exclusive
contracts with PC vendors, ISP1s, etc.
Eric C. Pollitt, Senior Web Editor
MultiAd Planner Solutions
1720 W. Detweiller Dr.
Peoria, IL 61615-1695
Tel: 309-690-5547
Fax: 309-690-5599
URL: http://content.multi-ad.com/
MultiAd
One Company. Many Solutions.
MTC-00022808
From: Michael Ickes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe that the settlement you have made will be enough of a
deterrent to keep Microsoft on the right side of the law in their business
practices.
At the very least you should make it mandatory that all offences found by
your 3 member oversight committee should be published publicly for anyone
to review.
I am in favor of the revised document submitted by the non-settling states.
While I do not believe that all the measures will in that document would
ever be implemented and some may well not be completely necessary, I
believe that it is a more realistic approach to ensuring that Microsoft
does not use its position in the computer industry to force their software
on consumers. Microsoft has the resources at its disposal to make products
that should be able to compete without any bullying or ant-competitive
practices.
Michael Ickes
Computer Tech assistant.
Wayne College (university of Akron)
MTC-00022809
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:23pm
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,
Matthew Meginnes
1103 Mint Springs Dr
Fairborn, OH 45324-5728
MTC-00022810
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:24pm
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,
karl schaupp
PO Bx 6499
Ocean View , HI 96737
MTC-00022811
From: Elizabeth Lester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a California resident and, like millions of Americans, a technology
consumer. I believe it is most definitely in the public interest to
expedite settlement of the Microsoft case. Please, stop wasting finite
government and private resources on this witch hunt. Let's move forward
with technology and innovation, and stop punishing those who have done it
well. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth H. Lester
Fremont, California
MTC-00022812
From: John Knoll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I'd like to take this opportunity to state that I do not think that the
proposed Microsoft settlement is any real form of punishment. First of all,
most of the proposed giveaway of Microsoft software will cost Microsoft
very little, since the cost of software manufacturing is very low to
Microsoft compared to the retail price.
Second, this giveaway would only increase Microsoft's monopoly in the
education market, exactly the opposite of our nation's interest. The
settlement should be changed so that the schools are given no strings
attached cash, so they can choose to spend it how they see fit.
[[Page 27228]]
Thank you for your attention.
John Knoll
San Rafael, CA
MTC-00022813
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:26pm
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,
Kay Campbell 10817 N. County Rd 3 Wellington, CO 80549
MTC-00022814
From: Dennis Pepler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs
The proposed settlement terms look as bad in the UK as they do to many of
your fellow-countrymen.
Microsoft did not adhere to previous settlement undertakings. It cannot be
relied to do so again, even on a modified honour system. Its gagging of
virtually captive OEM customers concealed its illegal acts. Your proposed
remedies give no assurance of future compliant behaviour in their present
form.
Nothing in your proposals will prevent lock-in tactics by Microsoft.
Competition will continue to be stifled and--as always--the
customer loses out.
You should be looking for a solution which makes it impossible to carry on
rolling the bundling snowball down the Microsoft hill, as seems to be
happening with Windows WP.
I write as a Windows user.
Yours faithfully
D G Pepler
Poynton, Cheshire, UK.
MTC-00022815
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:27pm
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,
Donald Bowman
1605 Walthour Rd.
Savannah, GA 31410
MTC-00022816
From: Andrew Bogott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing concerning the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft.
As a software developer I have experienced many consequences of Microsoft's
monopoly and their abuses of it. I am deeply dissatisfied with the remedies
that you are currently considering.
Clearly, Microsoft's ownership of Microsoft Windows is at the heart of
their monopoly power. I'm struck, then, at how the proposed settlement
dodges this essential fact: if there were other potential providers of
Windows-compatible operating systems, Microsoft would cease to be a
monopoly. Needless to say, Microsoft will do all that it can to prevent the
emergence of such competitors; any antitrust action that permits it to
continue to do so will ultimately fail to dislodge Microsoft from its
position as a monopoly.
I am an occasional contributor to the Wine project, which is an open-source
initiative which seeks to create (in conjunction with Linux) a Windows-
compatible alternative to Windows. Wine is by no means the only potential
competitor to Windows, but I suspect that the barriers we're encountering
have impeded similar projects, commercial and non-commercial.
Most importantly, in order to create a Windows-compatible OS, we need to
know --exactly-- what it means to be windows-compatible. This
would require Microsoft to publish accurate, reliable and up-to-date
documentation of their APIs. The settlement proposal requires that
Microsoft publish such APIs but, interestingly, it specifically excludes OS
designers from the potential recipients of this information: (section E)
``Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System
Product...'' Clearly, this line must be amended to allow this
information to be distributed to potential OS (or Windows-compatibility)
designers. Additionally, as a Wine developer, I'm uncomfortable that this
section discusses Microsoft's duties to specific company types... as Wine
is not a company per se, I'd prefer that this information be released to
the public domain, plain and simple.
Having dealt with a decade of Microsoft-imposed frustrations, I might like
to see the company punished simply out of spite. I am, however, trying to
take a utilitarian approach. I think of all the things that personal
computers could be today if not for the past years under the monopoly's
shadow, and I dream of a future in which true innovation (and the
competition that produces it) is possible.
We are at a crossroads--either we can have Microsoft established (like
AT&T of the 1900's) as our nation's single, government-protected
operating system-provider, or we can have a truly diverse, competitive,
innovative landscape for personal computing. The resolution of this
antitrust trial will choose one of these paths. As currently written, it
chooses the former.
Thank you for your consideration.
MTC-00022817
From: pod mate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
I do not believe that the Microsoft judgement is correct or fair.
For years, Microsoft has used its monopoly in the software and web browser
industry to force businesses and software products out of the market. I
could not find any piece of the judgement that will force Microsoft to pay
for the crimes of the past.
They are simply restricted in how they can do future business. This does
not go far enough. Microsoft already has a monopoly in the market. They
will not loose that monopoly just because they are not allowed to do or not
do certain things, as spelled out in the judgement. Microsoft should be
broken into two companies. Or, at least fine them severly (something like
75% of their cash reserves and 10% of all sales for the next 5 years) and
impose the current judgement. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
David Gill
Boston, Massachusetts
MTC-00022818
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This lawsuit is laughable!!
I have used both platforms and all types of programs in my years of
teaching business education and computers. Believe me Microsoft develops
outstanding products, gives the consumer great help with problems and
resolves any issues in the most professional way. I have been using AOL
since it first became available and feel the same way about it. However,
Netscape is another issue!! I teach people in their homes how to resolve
and learn how to use their computer and the ones with Netscape have much
difficulty. This has nothing to do with Microsoft but the program itself!!!
Get real!!!!! Why is it that lesser companies try to recreate problems for
the more knowledge, creative excellent performing businesses.
They want a handout as far as I am concerned and the legal system shouldn't
[[Page 27229]]
allow this!!!! I was very disappointed that the companies that were suing
Microsoft wouldn't go along with the donation to the schools. What benefit
to short of cash & technology the schools have to deal with that harm
children!! But yet the companies are their with their hand out wanting
something!! It is disgusting and I am not going to purchase any of those
products from those companies. However, I love AOL and will stay with them.
Please look at the whole picture on this ludicrous (as far as I am
concerned) lawsuit.
Marilynn M Russell
12116 Cochise Lane SW
Lakewood WA 98499-5247
253 584-0147
FAX 253 589-6813
MTC-00022819
From: Geoffrey Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:34pm
Subject: Support for Microsoft
I am a proffessional computer programer with 25 years experience. I am an
independent consultant and I have never been paid by Microsoft.
I have from day one believed that the anti-trust suit against Microsoft is
a farce and a travesty. It should never have occurred. Software is simply a
collection of ideas made manifest in a machine. It is no more possible, in
my mind, to claim that Microsoft is a monopoly than it would be to claim
that Stephen King monopolizes scary books or Disney is a monopolist in the
entertainment industry.
When I began in this business, it was dominated by large companies who were
far more dominant in their practices than Microsoft ever was. It was almost
impossible for independents such as myself to afford the equipment,
software and training that we would need to function and stay current in
that environment. Thanks to Microsoft, I have my own business of which I am
proud. At the same time that my costs have decreased to perhaps a tenth of
what they might have been (not adjusted for inflation), the content and
complexity of the work has grown ten fold. Microsoft has provided me with a
wonderful business opportunity. I pay them, they do not pay me but I have
profitted from my association and from having Microsoft in the world.
I believe that if Microsoft were to abuse its market position and raise
prices, they would loose business. It would not be hard to produce a
product that competes with them, replaces theirs. In fact such products do
exist and are not really popular. These products fail because the companies
that produce them are badly run and not because of predatory practice by
Microsoft.
Companies that it is alleged Microsoft has ``injured'' injured
themselves more than they were injured while others are so much larger than
Microsoft they can scarcely claim injury. During the period it might be
claimed that Microsoft and Netscape were competing I found Netscape hard to
deal with, hard to place orders with, producing a demonstrably inferior
product and engaging in practices similar to those they claim for
Microsoft. Bottom line and in my professional opinion Netscape has an
inferior product and was a badly, arrogantly run company and this is why
they failed.
In regards to the notion that the browser can be removed from the operating
system. This is superficially true but pragmatically irrelevant. As an
analogy, one could remove the ability to play sounds on a PC easily enough
but then many applications would fail to work. True, the operating system
would work but not as a productive product. Similarly, as a technical
question the browser could be removed. However, so many programs depend on
the browser, not just those produced by Microsoft, that absolutely nobody
would want a Microsoft operating system from which the brower has been
removed. Help files would no longer work. Products that even compete with
Microsoft such as Real Audio would no longer work. Almost nothing would
work if Internet explorer were really removed.
As I said this is a farce and it should be simply ended in the most legally
expedient way possible.
Geoffrey Feldman
[email protected]
1541 Middlesex St. #8
Lowell, MA 01851
617-429-8966
MTC-00022820
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:31pm
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,
Jerry Cook
6917 Noah Drive
Fort Washington, MD 20744
MTC-00022821
From: Burton Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am adding my voice to those who feel that Microsoft must be stopped from
spreading their technology in an unfettered fashion. You were correct to
reject the settlement proposed between Microsoft and the class action
lawyers. That settlement would have allowed Microsoft to give away its
software as a disguise to aiding schools and school children. It would have
hurt competition not helped to create more competition. Recently the
headlines have shown once again how Microsoft is not capable of telling the
truth or adhering to the law of the land. Last fall they filed papers
saying that they did not try to influence the outcome of the case by
petitioning congress or the administration. They have amended that
statement by saying they in fact did do that.
As came out in the trial with Judge Jackson, Microsoft will lie and cheat
even when it comes to dealing with a trial. I refer here to their
presentation of a video that was to show how removing the browser caused a
machine to slow down. In fact the tape was shown in court to be a false
representation, one they could not make right when given a chance.
You can send them a message that when a company is convicted of a crime it
cannot dictate their punishment but rather must accept the court1s
judgment. I recently came upon a document that tells, better than I, what
needs to be done. It shows why it is imperative that Microsoft needs to be
stopped from continuing to have their way with the courts and the free
marketplace. Now is your time to act decisively.
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in
U.S. v. Microsoft falls far short of what is needed to put an end Microsoft
1 s pattern of predatory practices. This deal does not adequately protect
competition and innovation in this vital sector of our economy, does not go
far enough to address consumer choice, and fails to meet the standards for
a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague
and unenforceable. The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is
much too short to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has
maintained and expanded its monopoly power through fear and intimidation.
Microsoft1s liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open for
debate. Microsoft has been found liable before the District Court, lost its
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for rehearing in the appellate
court denied, and had its appeal to the Supreme Court turned down. The
courts have decided that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used
that power unlawfully to protect its monopoly.
The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate courtls standard
to 3terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past
statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity. 2
This proposed settlement fails to do so.
The Deal Fails to Meet the Appellate Courtls Remedy Standards This proposed
settlement clearly fails to meet the standards clearly laid out by the
appellate court. In fact, the weak settlement between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the Court of Appeals ruling
against Microsoft. Here are several examples of where this weak settlement
falls short:
[[Page 27230]]
The settlement does not address key Microsoft practices found to be illegal
by the appellate court, such as the finding that Microsoft1s practice of
bolting applications to Windows through the practice of 3commingling code 2
was a violation of antitrust law. This was considered by many to be among
the most significant violations of the law, but the settlement does not
mention it.
The settlement abandons the principle that fueled consumer criticism and
which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998: Microsoft1s decision to
bind - or 3bolt2--Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system in
order to crush its browser competitor Netscape. This settlement gives
Microsoft 3sole discretion2 to unilaterally determine that other products
or services which donlt have anything to do with operating a computer are
nevertheless part of a 3Windows Operating System product.2 This creates a
new exemption from parts of antitrust law for Microsoft and would leave
Microsoft free to bolt financial services, cable television, or the
Internet itself into Windows. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft
monopoly, and instead guarantees Microsoft1s monopoly will survive and be
allowed to expand into new markets.
The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against would-be
competitors and to take the intellectual property of competitors doing
business with Microsoft.
The proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many key terms, which
is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding. Loopholes Undermine
Strong-Sounding Provisions The proposed settlement shows that it contains
far too many strong-sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes.
Here are several examples: The agreement requires Microsoft to share
certain technical information with other companies in order for non-
Microsoft software to work as intended. However, Microsoft is under no
obligation to share information if that disclosure would harm the company1s
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm might
occur? Microsoft.
The settlement says that Microsoft 3shall not enter into any agreement2 to
pay a software vendor not to develop or distribute software that would
compete with Microsoft1s products. However, another provision permits those
payments and deals when they are 3reasonably necessary.2 The ultimate
arbiter of when these deals would be 3reasonably necessary?2 Microsoft. The
settlement does nothing to deal with the effects on consumers and
businesses of technologies such as Microsoft1s Passport. Passport has been
the subject of numerous privacy and security complaints by national
consumer organizations. However, corporations and governments that place a
high value on system security will be unable to benefit from competitive
security technologies, even if those technologies are superior to Microsoft
l s. Why? Microsoft controls their choices through its monopolies and
dominant market share, and still is able to dictate what technologies it
will include.
Enforcement
The weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave Microsoft free
to do practically whatever it wants. A three-person technical committee
will be appointed, which Microsoft appointing one member, the Department of
Justice appointing another, and the two sides agreeing on the third. This
means that Microsoft gets to appoint half of the members of the group
watching over its actions.
The committee is supposed to identify violations of the agreement. But even
if the committee finds violations, the work of that committee cannot be
admitted into court in any enforcement proceeding. This is like allowing a
football referee to throw as many penalty flags as he likes for flagrant
violations on the field, but prohibiting him from marching off any
penalties.
Finally, Microsoft must comply with the lenient restrictions in the
agreement for only five years. This is not long enough for a company found
guilty of violating antitrust law.
The Proposed Settlement fails to Adequately Address Consumer Needs The
settlement does not go far enough to provide greater consumer choice, and
leaves Microsoft in a position that it can continue to charge whatever it
wants for its products.
As a recent Chicago Tribune story said: 3If you believe that what1s good
for Microsoft Corp. is good for consumers, the proposed settlement of the
software giant1s three-year federal antitrust battle is cause for
celebration. If you believe that consumers would benefit more if Microsoft
could no longer use its Windows monopoly as a springboard into new markets,
you stand to be sorely disappointed.2
In addition, consumer groups have opposed the settlement. Mark Cooper,
director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said: 3Wall
Street1s view is that Microsoft1s business model doesn1t change. If that1s
the case, we will continue to be afflicted with the same anti-competitive
behavior.2
Analysts Conclude that Deal Will Not Affect Microsoft1s Practices Sadly,
the proposed final judgment by Microsoft and the Department of Justice has
the potential make the competitive landscape of the software industry
worse, contains so many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be
unenforceable, and is likely to lead to years of additional litigation.
Analysts of all kinds have indicated that the weak settlement will not
impact Microsoft or its illegal practices. Following are a variety of
examples:
3As we have stated before, we believe a settlement is a best case scenario
for Microsoft. And, this settlement in particular seems like a win for
Microsoft being that it would preserve Microsoft I s ability to bundle its
Internet assets with Windows XP and future operating systems--a plus
for the company. In fact, it appears that Internet assets such as Passport
are untouched. Also, as is typical with legal judgments, this settlement is
backward looking, not forward looking. In other words, it looks at
processes in the past, but not potential development of the future.2 Morgan
Stanley, 11/02/01
3The deal ? appears to be ?more, better, and faster1 than we expected in a
settlement deal between Microsoft and DoJ. The deal will apparently require
few if any changes in Windows XP and leave important aspects of Microsoft1s
market power intact.2 Prudential Financial, 11/01/01 3With a dramatic win
last week, Microsoft appears to be on its way to putting the U.S. antitrust
case behind it. The PFJ between the Department of Justice and Microsoft
gives little for Microsoft1s competitors to cheer about. ? There is very
little chance that competitors could prove or win effective relief from
violation of this agreement, in our view.2 Schwab Capital Markets, 11/6/01
3This is a spectacular victory for Microsoft. 2
David Yoffie, professor, Harvard Business School, New York Times 11/02/01
This deal appears to fall far short of what could have been obtained in
court, and what's necessary to protect the public.2 Andrew Schwartzman,
public interest firm lawyer, Media Access Project, Wall Street Journal 11/
02/01 [The settlement] fails to protect competition in the software
industry and does not come close to dealing with the problems that were
found to exist by the District Court and the Court of Appeals.2
Albert A. Foer, president, American Antitrust Institute, Washington Post
11/05/01 This is a reward, not a remedy.2 Kelly Jo MacArthur, general
counsel, RealNetworks, Inc., Globe and Mail 11/08/01 3It looks like the
government is giving them a slap on the wrist. I find that sad. It won It
achieve any of the goals of the proceeding.2 Robert Lande, law professor
and antitrust expert, University of Baltimore, ZDWire 11/07/01
The strength of any remedy is particularly important given Microsoft1s
growing dominance in the software markets. Since the end of the trial in
the District Court, Microsoft1s monopolies are stronger in each of its core
markets with both the Windows operating system and the Office suite now
higher than 92 percent and 95 percent, respectively. In addition, Microsoft
has achieved a monopoly in web browsers, and has seen competitors such as
the Linux operating system fade.
The Microsoft Monopoly Should not be Exempt from Antitrust Laws Enforcing
federal antitrust laws against monopolies is not new or novel. Antitrust
law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer welfare in this
country for more than a century. The Microsoft case does not represent a
novel application of the law, but is the kind of standard antitrust
enforcement action necessary to insure vigorous competition in all sectors
of today's economy.
These same standards have been applied to monopolies in the past. We do not
have one oil company determining how much we pay for gasoline, but instead
we have suppliers such as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco and Chevron competing with
each other. These companies were all part of the Standard Oil monopoly,
which was dissolved because Standard Oil was found to have violated the
antitrust laws.
Less than 20 years ago, the nation essentially had one telephone
company-- AT&T. After the government sued AT&T for violating
the antitrust laws, the company was broken up, and competition was
introduced in the long distance business. Since competition was introduced
into that market, real prices have declined more than 70
[[Page 27231]]
percent, and there has been more innovation in the past two decades than in
most of the preceding century. Settlement is Based on Flawed Economic
Assumption, and Sets a Bad Precedent Some defenders of the proposed
settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ have adopted the view that
settling this case could somehow revive the slowing U.S. economy. Their
motives are good, but their reasoning is flawed. What economic theory holds
that protecting monopolies is better for stimulating the economy that
promoting competition?
In addition, this case will set an important precedent. Former Judge Robert
H. Bork has noted that:
3In settling the most important antitrust case in decades through a remedy
that will have not impact on the current or future competitive landscape,
and absolutely no deterrent effect on the defendant, the Department of
Justice has effectively repealed a major segment of the nation 1 s
antitrust laws. Moreover, any potential witness with knowledge of
anticompetitive conduct in a monopolized market has to weigh the potential
benefit of his or her testimony against the likely response of the
defendant monopolist. The DOJ1s proposed meaningless remedy would insure
that no witness would ever testify against Microsoft in any future
enforcement action. 2
Conclusion
The end result is that this proposed settlement allows Microsoft to
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft to use
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. After
more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft,
surely we can--and we must--do much better than this flawed
proposed settlement between the company and the Department of Justice.
The points made in this letter must be addressed to finally free America.
Burton Cohen
TBI Computer, LLC
[email protected]
(203) 222-1878 Telephone
(203) 858-4728 Cell Phone
MTC-00022822
From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AOL are incredible! Purchasing Netscape after the media had already
reported the MS vs Netscape saga with the clear cut runner being IE as a
matter of consumer choice! Internet Explorer is streets ahead in
technology, speed, you name it, it is the best browser ever. Do you
honestly beleive any courtroom decision will stop me using Internet
Explorer. Do you think i wanted Netscape? Is Linux harming
Microsoft--its Free!!!!!!!1 What is the U.S.A going to do about that?
What about Sun giving away Java? What about the bombardment of AOL cds
through my letterbox every single MONTH!!!! My only thoughts are that its
about time the US government took a stand against companies targeting
microsoft purely to obtain quick financial gain from decisions they took
which were inferiror. AOL should be split up. How can you allow such a vast
company to control the media channels by using litigation instead of
competitive practices.
Shame on you and on the nine states with their obvious corruption led
decision making proce$$. Microsoft started as 2 men, hard work, brains and
success. AOL was started by a bubble--and its about time it was burst.
Jason
MTC-00022823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:31pm
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,
Robert Evans
334 Ayers Farm Road
Stowe, VT 05672
MTC-00022824
From: Troy Strand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's proposed settlement will not only not cost them much
financially, therefore not truly being a penalty but more of a marketing
expense, it will also give them a new and lucrative monopolistic
opportunity in the education market. The one market that they haven't been
able to bully their way into has been education. Schools have been able to
make their own choice based on cost of ownership, ease of use and ease of
support.
If Microsoft's proposed settlement was approved, it would take away all
opportunities for Apple Computer and many third party software vendors.
Companies who create and distribute superior products would be forced out
of the education market by way of lower income school districts not having
a choice but to use Microsoft/Intel based products since they would be
basically free, aside from the total cost of ownership, which is much, much
higher than that of comparable Apple products.
Microsoft should be forced to pay a true financial penalty with a
substantial amount funding an education pool that would allow school
districts to be granted money to make purchases for technology based on
their need and desire.
Sincerely,
Troy Strand
MTC-00022825
From: Ilya Volynets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemnt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I think this settlement is plain wrong. You cannot limit monopoly actions,
if it wants to abuse it's power: they will always find some way arround.
The only way to deal with it is to break Microsoft apart, into many
companies: three or four of each sector of activity. By sector of activity
I mean things like OS, Office Applications, Databases, Web and Application
middle tier (Web servers, Application servers, etc), Web browsers, etc.
Best regards.
Ilya.
MTC-00022826
From: Murray Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
It is clearly time to move forward with this case and complete a final
settlement for the best interest of the consumer and the economy. There
must be other ``high profile'' cases you can find that have more
merit. It's no secret that Microsoft's tactics were obsessive in striving
to create a platform standard. But it has done so, more successfully than
anyone else. And using the courts to compensate for losses in a competitive
market place is a waste of taxpayers $ and diverts resources that could be
further contributing to the market.
Some might say other technologies, systems, platforms, etc were superior
and I would remind them of the fact that any R&D department knows, that
most products area compromises and seldom use the most technically superior
solution. That's why product development is separate from R&D. Yes,
lots of people have good ideas and there is still an opportunity for those
ideas to take hold in the market. At one time, Norel networks and Word
Perfect were office standards. They were eclipsed in the market. Some day
Microsoft may be eclipsed, but it should be without your help. We are
farther along in standardized computing and electronic communication than
without a Microsoft.
I would also say that the recent AOL case is clearly an effort to use the
courts where competition failed. Netscape was on the slide when AOL
acquired them. The product was eclipsed in capability and performance. The
lawsuit is again a way to use you to burden Microsoft while AOL themselves
hold the dominant position in Cable, Online customers, instant messaging,
etc. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. Toss it out and let the
markets move on!
Best regards,
Murray B. Parker
808 826-6382
[email protected]
fax 815 371 1915
MTC-00022827
From: Conan Heiselt
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27232]]
Date: 1/24/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Although I am painfully aware of the difficulty in arriving at the current
Microsoft Settlement, I am not pleased with it. I believe that instead of
halting Microsoft's unfair business practices, this settlement will force
them to discover other methods. Rather than this little ``slap on the
wrist,'' there needs to be something more serious and lasting, not
something that can be side-stepped with relative ease.
Sincerely,
Conan Heiselt
Systems Engineer,
Eastman Kodak, Health Imaging Division
Fremont, CA
MTC-00022828
From: Grehan, Yvonne
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.''
Date: 1/24/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsfot settlement
Please forge on with settling the above case. We, the American public, need
all the help we can get to stimulate our economy and I believe this would
be a GIANT step forward. AOL's timing implies nothing more than self-
serving advantage.
Yvonne
MTC-00022829
From: Carol Shelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case against Microsoft may have had a basis in law in the beginning.
However, the case has dragged on so long and the whole computer industry
has changed so much in the intervening time that any continuation of the
suit or of penalties to be paid to other than computer users is ridiculous.
Stop this witch hunt and tell the states and government to look elsewhere
for money to spend.
Carol M. Shelton
MTC-00022830
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:34pm
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,
Kathleen Werner
101 Duck Woods Drive
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949-3605
MTC-00022831
From: Safetyware.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:37pm
Subject: For Microsoft
Hello
Other software companies like Oracle and AOL can't compete in the
marketplace, so they have to stoop to legal attacks. Before we had
Microsoft Windows, the computer industry was a mess with dozens on non-
compatible software operating systems. Don't take us back to those dark
ages. Please... rule against the bad businessmen at Oracle, AOL and other
such companies and save Microsoft.
Thank you,
Don Hughes
[email protected]
MTC-00022832
From: Travis Lynch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My small technology consulting business is hobbled by the many
anticompetitive practices that are clearly evident in Microsoft's business
model. I do not believe that the PFJ adequately addresses the unfair
licensing restrictions (imposed on both myself and my clients) that prevent
me from providing my clients with simple and elegant non-Microsoft
solutions. This leaves me (in many cases) with no choice but to develop
using inferior Microsoft proprietary technologies that are more expensive
to both me and my clients. I believe that the vagaries of the proposed
settlement provide a license for Microsoft to continue with business-as-
usual. These business practices amount to ``Unacceptable Barriers To
Entry'' for my company and many others in what is probably the most
important growing market segment in the world.
Travis Lynch
Chief Technical Architect
Pluggable Systems, Inc.
http://www.pluggable.com
(301)860-1261
MTC-00022833
From: Sharon K Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
MTC-00022834
From: Vikram Chiruvolu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:39pm
Subject: Cogent argument for Microsoft's break-up
As a software entrepreneur, I must advocate the dissolution of MicroSoft
into three separate entities:
--the operating systems company which is tightly monitored and
regulated for compliance with anti-trust measures
--the productivity/entertainment software company which is more
loosely monitored to ensure no anti-competitive alliances are created
between it and the Operating Systems company
--the media company which is monitored as any other is by the FTC/FCC
By way of arguing my case:
Suppose a firm, MicroEngine Corp, had a 90%+ market share, a monopoly, on
automobile engines. Suppose the US government has come to terms with
MicroEngines that it shall not engage in anti-competitive behavior and is
operating under a ``consent decree''. Now suppose you were an
entrepreneur who devised an inexpensive gadget and service, called a
TuneUpNet. The gadget is designed to easily be added under the hood of any
car with a MicroEngine, based upon their published engine specifications.
The gadget would allow the details of engine performance to be transmitted
via satellite to the service, which would inform you via email when your
car needed an oil change or tuneup. No market currently exists for such a
product because you are the first to devise it; it is clear that the cost
of not getting oil changes and tuneups costs consumers so much in destroyed
engines each year that there will certainly be a strong market for it.
Supposing it is such a strong value proposition that you are able to raise
the small amount of investment capital required to market it, and you bring
it to market. You get rave preview writeups from all the trade magazines.
Now suppose in the same week that you release your product to the open
market, that MicroEngine Corp. contacts you with a proposal to buy your
company. It is clear the alternative, should you not accept is that they
will announce they intend to compete with you directly. Because they need
only announce such a change to their product, they win the market with no
actual investment into product research and development on their part.
Further, they claim that network monitoring technology is an
``integral part'' of the engine of the future, and therefore is
within their market; the claim seems quite reasonable to judges who have no
special expertise in the engine market, and any civil lawsuit on the matter
would take a decade to resolve. The judgement, de facto, is that unless you
sell out to MicroEngine Corp, you go out of business.
Now imagine you are a competitor to MicroEngines, called GoodMachines, and
you command 3% of the automotive engine market. Shortly after being
approached by MicroEngine Corp, the head of TuneUpNet approaches you and
suggests a deal to integrate his technology into your engines. However, it
will require a great deal of custom technology research and development
costs to make the product work with your product's published specifications
nicely. It is unclear to you how much this will distinguish your product in
the market; but it is clear that, if you don't do it, MicroEngine Corp will
have a clear advantage. As you are a startup competitor to MicroEngine
Corp, you do not have ample capital to finance development of this
innovation, nor do you have the power to prevent it from gaining market
share on its own. You go ahead with the deal at some significant risk and
put a good deal of capital
[[Page 27233]]
into financing a partnership with TuneUpNet that would work with your
engines.
Three months later, MicroEngine Corp issues a press release stating the
next year's version of their product line will have its own network
reporting system built in, functionally identical to TuneUpNet. Three
months after that, investors pull out of TuneUpNet, its market is sapped by
the MicroEngines announcement. TuneUpNet can no longer continue in its
partnership, and the integration work is left half completed, and you, take
a significant loss. Neither GoodMachines or MicroEngines next years product
line have the features of TuneUpNet integrated into it, TuneUpNet is forced
out of business, and GoodMachines capital strength has been sorely hurt and
cannot compete well at all.
This analogy is all you really need to understand the core of what ought to
be done about the Microsoft case. The scenario Ive described has played out
so many times in so many ways with MicroSoft using its operating system
monopoly to crush what they view as ``competitive'' desktop
productivity, entertainment, and network services. If senior management at
Microsoft under its current corporate structure are to do their job
effectively, they must use their clout in this way--their job is after
all to maximize shareholder value. The only way to structurally detach
Microsofts operating systems dominance from any incentive or even ability
to drown out competition in the market for productivity and entertainment
software, is for its operating systems unit to become a separate, tightly
regulated company.
Further, note that Microsoft has already succeeded in extending their
monopoly to PC productivity software market (word processors, spreadsheets,
email readers, web browsers). They have already been successful with
Microsoft Office in effectively defeating Lotus 1-2-3,
Wordperfect, and Netscapes Navigator and Messenger products along the way.
Just as there has simply no competition against Microsoft's ability to use
their established market in desktop operating systems to dominate the way
the desktop PC software market evolves, there is now no competition for
Microsoft to leverage its dominance in the PC productivity/entertainment
software market into the emerging market for network services and other
media-company type offerings. This is why the Productivity/Entertainment
software business must also be spun out as a separate unit from its media
businesses, which should form the remainder of the company.
To close with s word of encouragement: government, we the people, must
maximize the broader social values at stake--innovation,
entrepreneurship, and fair competition. Legal structures exist to embody
and enforce our highest values, not obfuscate and evade them. The
protectors of such a system, the judges, must have the courage to act
decisively when circumstances arise in which the veil of corporate secrecy
and the power of corporate interests are in direct and ongoing conflict
with our most fundamental ideas about the purpose of a corporation in human
society and affairs to promote the general welfare through the innovation
and competition inherent in the free enterprise system. Do not shrink from
doing the right thing here--America will be better off for it.
Thanks for reading,
Vikram Chiruvolu
6 Villa Place
Eatontown, NJ 07724
MTC-00022835
From: Robert Weiler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft 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. 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 their 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.''
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
[[Page 27234]]
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-00022836
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:37pm
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,
bill jenkins
1610 dalary pt
crystalriver, FL 34429
MTC-00022839
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:38pm
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,
Ted Greig
9124 Crebs AV
Northridge, CA 91324
MTC-00022844
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:39pm
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,
Bill Woodward
3829 Skyline Ave.
El Paso, TX 79904-1142
MTC-00022845
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:40pm
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,
frank frank
335 reserve st
boonton, NJ 07005
MTC-00022865
From: Scott Fenton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
If you have any idea how grossly inadequate the penalties levied at
Microsoft's abuse of the anti-trust statutes are, you would feel compelled
to make every effort to increase the severity of settlement. As the
president of a California-headquartered investment company, Lodestar
Capital Group, Inc., I am an otherwise disinterested party in the
settlement. I can say, though, that for the six years our corporation has
been in business, we have had to struggle with the enormous drag on
productivity that Microsoft's stranglehold on the marketplace for computer
operating-system [O/S], as well as for application-software. We have never
been able to buy a computer without their operating system, even though
half the machines in the house run under Unix or Linux, because they have
forced vendors to only offer their operating system through selective
contracts. We are then forced to throw out the software and manuals that we
have just paid for, before installing the other operating systems such that
we can continue our business. This is, in essence, a Bill Gates Tax.
But the lingering effects go further. Because we are forced to buy an O/S
that we do not want or use--because of Microsoft's monopolistic
abuses--we also invalidate part of our warranty and our technical help
contract for the hardware we buy. It's one of several examples of this kind
of insidious malignancy that the current settlement inadequately addresses.
Microsoft's products are poor and unreliable, but we in the business
community are forced to buy them because of the illegal muscle they have
applied to marketplace. We all end up paying a price for the substantial
loss in productivity and increase in cost from this inefficiency. I am more
than happy to give any further testimony or evidence to strengthen the
penalties against this monopolistic corporation.
Scott Fenton
President & CEO
Lodestar Capital Group, Inc.
MTC-00022866
From: Robert E Finnegan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:36pm
Subject: Public opinion
Dear Sirs,
I must say that my faith in the US justice system was shaken by the wishy
washy
[[Page 27235]]
treatment finally afforded the prime example of a monopoly of the last
century! The message seems to be that ``all animals are created equal,
some more equal than others''--that is, that if your pockets are
deep enough, you're above the law. A sad day for America.
Robert Finnegan
MTC-00022867
From: David Finkbeiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. It does not enforce any limitations on its bundling practices.
With their next big strategy to take over the home electronics market
(digital entertainment systems, etc.) it's vitally important that Microsoft
not be allowed to continue its very effective bundling strategy. They must
at least be split into an Operating system company and an applications
company-- that would really level the playing field.
Sincerely,
David Finkbeiner, a US Citizen
David Finkbeiner
10129 Oakwood Chase Ct.
Oakton, VA 22124
703-319-2099
David Finkbeiner email:
[email protected]
MTC-00022868
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:41pm
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 Todd
1303 Carolina Ct
The Villages, FL 32162
MTC-00022869
From: paul poirier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
On behalf of all intenet users ,I urge you to settle the case with
Microsoft ASAP. Mediate the amount of software and hardware Microsoft must
give to schools and other non-profit organizations to satisfy the courts.
Netscape/AOL are cry babies. They should spent there time and money
developing a competitive product instead of try to make a profit in court
at others expense. Netscape was never a good product that could have
competed with Internet Explorer.
DoJ should consider Anti- Trust action against AOL/Time Warner for their
monopolistic approach to internet access and music and entertainment.
MTC-00022870
From: M Land
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
``Surgeons must be very careful
When they take the knife!
Underneath their fine incisions
Stirs the culprit,--Life!''
Emily Dickinson wrote that.
Or, more bluntly, Robert X. Cringley wrote in a recent article for PBS.org
[1]: ``If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before.''
In this sense, it is not Microsoft who will die over a matter of a slip of
the knife, so to speak, but everyone who chooses to offer serious
alternatives to anything Microsoft develops and releases. Easily
implementable MPEG (a type of audio and video format) decoding standards
for DVD video and audio could be trampled to death if Microsoft is easily
and freely able to push its more proprietary formats on the DVD industry
[2]. For example, owners of non-Windows laptops with DVD players could be
seriously affected in the long term. (What if I can't play some DVD I want
because there's some obscure incompatibility in my DVD player? This is just
one important question that can be posed.)
What may be the worst issue of all is demonstrated by visiting the
following URL:
[http://www.microsoft.com/library/shared/deeptree/bot/bot.asp?xmlsrc=/
technet/library/1033/toc/tnlib/tnlib6586_.xml]
What you're looking at is a list of just _some_ of the
major, KNOWN security issues with Microsoft's software. You'll notice I
pulled this link from Microsoft.com itself. The dominance of Windows in the
United States is becoming a national security threat [3], and will
inevitably become worse as they're left more loopholes in court rulings and
established case law. Their seedier actions are rooted in the loose and
often downright retarded language in legal precedents, and if they aren't
provided with precedents that are solid and thought-out, they will, as Mr
Cringley wrote, continue to undermine the intent of courts in which they
argue and rulings to which they're told to adhere.
I would have little problem continuing on and on, but I am aware of the
almost uncountable amount of communication you must be receiving on this
subject, and understand that an extremely long-winded, rambling rant would
not be in the best interests of anyone but those about whom I seek to
write.
Best regards,
Matthew J. Land
4000 British Woods Dr.
Hopewell, VA 23860
[1] The article referenced and quoted can be found at: [http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html].
[2] An article
[http://slashdot.org/article.pl'sid=01/12/12/1357232&mode=thread]
at Slashdot.org is a good example of what is being referenced here. The
pushing of Microsoft's software in such areas could be very bad for the
consumer electronics industry if left free to roam unattended.
Subsequently, a search on Slashdot.org for the text ``Microsoft''
will yield a mountain of articles that discuss similar issues.
[3] An article
[https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-
headlines- business-manual] published by The LA Times discusses an FBI
warning--and even notes the inquiry of Rep Rick
Boucher--regarding security holes in Microsoft software such as the
wildly publicized Windows XP operating system. This is bad, regardless of
what Microsoft's publicity team will have you believe about their future
intentions regarding security issues with Windows and related Microsoft
products.
MTC-00022871
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:42pm
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,
Edward Schultski
43 Craig Dr
Apt 3R
West Springfield, MA 01089-4717
MTC-00022872
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:44pm
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
[[Page 27236]]
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,
Nelson Madrilejo
820 34th St.
Bakersfield, CA 93301-2268
MTC-00022873
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:44pm
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,
zan GREGORY 1041 amersham
kingsport, TN 37660-5092
MTC-00022874
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add my opinion about the Microsoft Settlement. This
settlement is not in the interests of the people, the proposed settlement
does not do nearly enough to encourage competition. The proposed settlement
has to many loopholes which allow MS to continue it's behavior. I would
like to thank you for your time.
Derek Harkness
MTC-00022875
From: Dave Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How can you possibly think this is a settlement? When Ma Bell was deemed to
have a monopoly on the phone system, was the answer to give more phones to
schools so they could use Ma bells service more? It is like dealing with
the petroleum monopoly by having them give out more cars.
Who was hurt by Microsoft's action? In my opinion it would be their
competitors and the users of competitors products. One example is this:
Many years ago there was a Database product called FoxPro, it only ran on
the Mac, and it was a very good database. Microsoft bought it, combined it
with their product Access, and then discontinued its support for the Mac.
Who did it hurt 1) all Mac users, 2) Apple, 3)Everyone, like me who wrote
products using FoxPro for the Mac.
If your goal is to help schools, great, why don't you have Microsoft buy
1,000,000,000 worth of Apple hardware and give it to schools. Plus prohibit
Microsoft from buying any corporations that create software products. Just
for the record, I have both Macs and PCs at home, and the company I work
for develops software for windows platforms.
Thanks
Dave Sweeney
IT Manager
Intrinsiq Data
800-565-2279x115
MTC-00022876
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:44pm
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,
Patricia Williams
917 Union Street
Birdsboro, PA 19508
MTC-00022878
From: Jonas Callewaert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
hello.
I don't like the settlement proposed between MS and DOJ. I think it does
not help consumers or companies who have been hurt.
I like what the 9 states are saying about a striped down version of windows
with no frills. Windows runs much better when all the extra stuff is
removed . when ever I set up my computer I remove IE with a nifty program
called 98lite. it makes the computer much more stable and faster. because
the IE integration is removed, as a consumer I wish not to be pushed
software from MS onto my desktop. I would like to choose what I want, and
have a clean OS nothing but an OS, then choose my software.
thank you for you time.
Jonas
MTC-00022879
From: Matt Krabbenhoft
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a Microsoft customer and computer user, I am not satisfied with the
Proposed Settlement currently under consideration in this matter. The
following item is specifically lacking.
SECTION III.D. 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. 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.
This is not acceptable in terms of competition. Disclosure of the necessary
APIs to developers of Non-Microsofte Middleware must be made well prior to
any beta version of that software. By the time the Microsoft Middleware
reaches its last major beta version, it is considered ready for release. If
the Microsoft OS APIs are not available to competing products prior to the
last major beta release, Microsoft enjoys a generous, government-sponsored
lead in getting their product to market before their competitors. These
APIs must released to competitors sooner. The last major alpha release
would be more sensible.
In addition, the term ``in a Timely Manner'' in regards to the
disclosure of APIs of new Operating System Products is too broad a term and
is open to interpretation. Microsoft may argue that a ``Timely
Manner'' means ``following the release of Service Pack 1''
of the new Operating System which could take place as much as 6 months
following the new software's initial release. Should there ever be a viable
alternative to the Microsoft Operating System, this clause, would give
Microsoft at least 6 months more time in the market than their competitors.
This reduces a competitor's ability to provide a competitive product and
leaves me as a consumer with little option but to purchase a Microsoft
product.
Overall, this judgement gives the impression that it addresses the anti-
trust violations for which Microsoft has been indicted. However, it does
not address the current state of the software market which has been and
continues to be heavily influenced by Microsoft's actions. In
[[Page 27237]]
addition, I do not see that I as a consumer am protected as much as I
should be. Specifically, with no viable alternative to the Microsoft
Operating System when using less expensive x86 compatible hardware, I am
forced (for reasons of compatibility) to use and therefor purchase
Microsoft software. It costs me less to purchase that computer equipment,
so that is what I buy. To use that computer equipment, I must use an
Operating System. Because of the greater availability of third-party
software for the Microsoft Windows operating system, I am guaranteed that I
can share files with friends, family, and business associates if I chose
the Microsoft product over Linux. This is especially so since Microsoft
Office (which holds a monopoly in the business productivity sector) is not
available on the Linux OS, and there are no FULLY compatible alternatives
available.
If I don't want to use Microsoft software on my less expensive x86
compatible hardware and still do business with those who do want to use it,
I need a viable alternative which is fully compatible with Microsoft
software. To get that kind of compatibility from a currently competing
product, I must either pay a premium (to replace my hardware and ALL of my
software) to use Apple software, or I must make operational and
compatibility sacrifices which may affect my ability to effectively do
business and use a Linux OS with software applications which are not fully
compatible with Microsoft products because Microsoft will not disclose the
necessary APIs. Thus, as a consumer, I am monetarily penalized unless I opt
for Microsoft software when using less expensive computer equipment.
Restraining Microsoft from penalizing competitors isn't enough protection
for the American consumer. Microsoft illegally forced its way into other
markets because it has no competition in its own. In this instance,
stimulating increased competition in the x86 Operating System market would
better benefit consumers and competiting producers of Middleware. It would
improve the availability of alternatives and the quality and security of
Operating Systems and Middleware products available on the open market. I
want to be able run Microsoft Word or Microsoft Internet Explorer on a
Linux OS computer without having to own a copy of Microsoft Windows too. In
its current form, this agreement doesn't grant me that option. It addresses
the past violations, but does not address the harm it has done to the
current software market.
Sincerly,
Matt Krabbenhoft
6605 Hillside Terrace Drive
Austin, TX 78749
MTC-00022880
From: rwgti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
enough already, get off Microsoft's back and end this mess. Microsoft is a
great American company that we should be proud of, not demonize.
thanks,
Roger Wills
Glendale, WI
MTC-00022881
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:46pm
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,
Susan Kerkering
92701 SW 138th Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
MTC-00022882
From:
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joel Schneider
8941 Kell Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55437
January 24, 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 10 years of experience, I would like to
comment on the United States v. Microsoft Corporation Revised Proposed
Final Judgement (PFJ), published in the Federal Register on November 28,
2001.
My reading of the PFJ has lead me to an opinion that it will not adequately
curtail Microsoft's exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory practices,
and therefore does not serve the public interest. This comment describes a
number of my concerns.
One concern I have about the PFJ is its expiration date. This supposed
remedy is set to expire five years from the date it is entered by the
Court, with a potential one-time extension of up to two years.
Considering the fact that Microsoft has already been able to successfully
circumvent judgements for Sherman Act infractions dating back to 1994, it
seems unwise to limit the PFJ to a maximum term of seven years.
Section VI.N, the definition for ``Non-Microsoft Middleware
Product'', includes a requirement that ``at least one million
copies were distributed in the United States within the previous calendar
year.''
This is a ridiculous requirement, as it requires any Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product to first struggle against and overcome Microsoft's
monopoly power and the applications barrier to entry for at least one year
before becoming eligible for protection as middleware under the PFJ. This
numerical constraint should be eliminated.
Section III.C.1 grants Microsoft authority to restrict an OEM from
displaying icons, shortcuts, etc. Granting this authority to Microsoft
limits the ability of OEMs to compete through customization of their
products. This section also does not clearly address middleware for which
there is no Microsoft equivalent. Microsoft's authority to restrict the
ability of OEMs to customize their systems should be eliminated.
Likewise, section III.C.2 prohibits OEMs from altering the user interface.
This infringes on the ability of OEMs to compete by modifying the user
interface. Microsoft's authority to stop OEMs from modifying the user
interface should be eliminated.
Section III.C.3 requires Non-Microsoft Middleware to display a user
interface similar to the corresponding Microsoft Middleware Product. This
limits the ability of middleware producers to compete through user
interface innovation. Microsoft's authority to control the user interfaces
offered by competing middleware should be eliminated.
Section III.C.4 requires that a non-Microsoft boot-loader be used when
launching other Operating Systems. OEMs should not be restricted to using a
non-Microsoft boot-loader for this purpose, and should be free to use any
boot-loader, including a Microsoft boot-loader.
Section III.C.5 requires that the OEM comply with technical specifications
established by Microsoft when presenting an IAP offer in the initial boot
sequence. This limits the ability of IAPs to compete against Microsoft's
IAP (MSN.com) and aids Microsoft in its efforts to extend its monopoly into
the IAP business. Microsoft's authority to control competing IAP offers
should be eliminated.
Section III.H.1 grants Microsoft authority to restrict users and OEMs from
displaying icons, shortcuts, etc. Granting this authority to Microsoft
limits the ability of users and OEMs to compete by customizing their
systems. This section also does not clearly address middleware for which
there is no Microsoft equivalent. Microsoft's authority to restrict the
ability of users and OEMs to customize their systems should be eliminated.
Section III.H.2 grants Microsoft control over the way in which Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products are presented to the user. This grants
favored status to Microsoft Middleware Products and thereby impairs the
ability of Non-Microsoft Middleware Products to compete. Microsoft's
authority to control the way in which Non-Microsoft Middleware Products are
presented to the user should be eliminated.
Section III.H also grants Microsoft the authority to impose technical
requirements, such as the ability to host a particular
[[Page 27238]]
ActiveX control, upon Non-Microsoft Middleware Products. However, Netscape
4.x, for instance, does not host ActiveX controls, in part due to the
security risks they present. This authority should be eliminated.
Section III.J enables Microsoft to withold documentation for some of its
APIs and communication protocols based on the pretense of protecting the
security of specific installations. It also enables Microsoft to impose
limitations on the audience to whom such API documentation is made
available.
However, there is a general consensus among computer security experts that
the witholding of such documentation (a.k.a. security by obscurity) does
not establish true computer security. Microsoft should not be allowed to
withold documentation for its APIs and communication protocols based on
this pretense.
The PFJ also omits an important consideration. Much of the present and
future competition to Microsoft comes from non-commercial Open Source and
freeware software products such as Linux, Apache, Sendmail, Samba, and
Wine. In January 2001, Microsoft president and CEO Steve Ballmer identified
the Linux phenomenon as ``threat number one.'' Apache and
Sendmail are established mainstays of the internet. Samba and Wine enable
non-Microsoft systems such as Linux to interoperate with (monopolistically
entrenched) Microsoft systems. It is reasonable to expect that these and
other Open Source and freeware software products are potential targets of
Microsoft. Under the existing PFJ, Open Source and freeware software
products receive very little consideration, as important portions of the
PFJ apply only to companies that meet Microsoft's criteria as a business
(see
Section III.J.2). The PFJ should be revised to offer specific protection to
Open Source and freeware software products.
The above briefly outlines several of my concerns regarding the PFJ. It is
possible, even likely, that the PFJ contains additional significant flaws
not mentioned here. I am of the opinion that the existing PFJ would
completely fail to accomplish its stated purpose of providing ``a
prompt, certain, and effective remedy for consumers by imposing injunctive
relief to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the violations of the
Sherman Act by Microsoft.'' The PFJ is in need of extensive rework and
should not be accepted in its present form.
In addition to this comment, I have endorsed an open letter to the DOJ,
written by Dan Kegel (of Los Angeles, California) and others. The open
letter contains an analysis of deficiencies in the proposed Microsoft
Settlement, along with suggestions for addressing those deficiencies. At
the time of this writing, the open letter is visible on the internet at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
I hope the United States Department of Justice will take these comments
into consideration and withdraw its consent from the PFJ. Failing that, I
hope these comments will help the Court to reach a conclusion that entry of
this PFJ does not serve the public interest.
Sincerely,
Joel Schneider
MTC-00022883
From: Eugene J Rohrer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I want to submit my comments in support of the settlement the Department of
Justice's settlement with Microsoft, as part of the Tunney Review phase of
the settlement.
As a somewhat dispassionate observer, I'm amazed how the courts and the
political process have been used by weaker competitors to literally punish
success. I use Microsoft products (operating system and the word processing
and spreadsheet programs), as does most of the working world, because they
are better products, not because I felt it pushed upon me by a ruthless
monopolist, and had absolutely no difficulty whatsoever choosing to use the
Netscape browser over the Explorer browser. I also use the RealNetworks
audio player instead of the Microsoft product. The notion that someone
couldn't choose to use someone else's product because it was bundled with
the operating system treats us all like 2nd graders. It's a flimsy argument
that insults the intelligence.
Please, end the uncertainty. We don't need any more in the economy. Settle
the case, and let the company with the best products win, not those with
the loudest lawyers, or those with the most money to donate to some
aspiring state attorney general. End the uncertainty. Approve the
settlement.
Thank you.
Gene Rohrer
Eugene J. Rohrer
mailto: [email protected]
843.524.9010 office
917.887.1597 cellular
801.749.3362 eFax
MTC-00022884
From: chuckbeatie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:51pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sirs
It continues to be a disappointment for competitors of Microsoft to use the
courts to compete instead of innovation and leadership in the field in
which they are competing.
It is a real travesty to attempt to stifle Microsoft in order to have
others compete.
Whatever happened to innovation to beat the competition instead of
litigation to bring your competitors down to your level.
Should I be allowed to sue Microsoft just because I want to get into the
browser business, when I don't do as good a job, or charge more for my
service* * *
This country was built on competition, innovation, and doing better than
everyone else... let Microsoft get back to business, and quit punishing
them for being the best of the best... Tell AOL to get on the ball and
write better code at a better price, and Netscape will surpass Microsoft.
You know it, and so does everyone else!
Sincerely,
Chuck Beatie
MTC-00022885
From: Seth Wissner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, I believe the proposed settlement is not severe
enough. Microsoft should be severly punished, not slapped on the wrist.
Regards.
Seth Wissner
MTC-00022886
From: Charles I. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We would like to add my feelings to the proposed settlement. We think it is
a waste of the paper it is written upon. We can see no reason it will stop
Microsoft from abusing their monopoly as they have done for the past years.
Their abuses just seem to get worse with each new update of an operating
system. They should have harsh penalties against them, not those currently
proposed. Those currently proposed contain no real penalties or future
oversight to keep them from abusing their monopoly. It seems the DOJ just
folded after so successfully proving their case. Where did all the proposed
penalties go? To the White house with all the campaign donations?
Charles I. and Angela F. Brown
Randolph, NH 03570
MTC-00022887
From: Dan Warrensford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
40 Uranus Avenue
Merritt Island, FL 32953
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in order to give my opinion concerning the settlement that has
been reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. While I feel
that Microsoft is being asked to give up more than should be asked of them,
I feel that whatever is necessary in order to bring about a resolution to
this case should be done.
The settlement requires Microsoft to give over, to their competition,
access to their software code and grant them intellectual property rights
in order to further the ability of competing products to contend with
Microsoft's products. Microsoft is not even allowed to retaliate when the
completion uses these products to further their own.
This alone goes far beyond what would be expected of any other company.
However, Microsoft is willing to do this because it very much wants to see
this case over and done with. The average person does as well, and so I
urge you to bring it to an end quickly.
Sincerely,
Dan Warrensford
P.S. Microsoft's competitors should not be allowed to use government force
to accomplish what those competitor's couldn't accomplish in the
marketplace, to wit, come up with a better ``mousetrap.'' If
those alleged
[[Page 27239]]
competitors wish to play on a Fascistic field, there are several nations
which will welcome their machinations; the U.S. shouldn't be one of those
nations.
Microsoft has never forced anyone to use Internet Explorer. Every user of
every machine has always been able to install and use other browsers of
their choosing. As well, all Microsoft has done is provide a good product
at a reasonable cost--as a Capitalist corporation in a Capitalist
nation is supposed to do.
Indeed, the prosecutors and jurists who've made mini-careers of attacking
Microsoft on behalf of Microsoft's competitors, or on behalf of
kleptomaniacal state governors ought to have their motives questioned by
the U.S. Department of Justice.
Regards, Dan Warrensford
MTC-00022888
From: Robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed
settlement over the Microsoft Antitrust case. To my understanding, the
courts have found it to be a fact that Microsoft, repeatedly and with
malicious intent, utilized its OS monopoly to unfairly damage competitors
and restrict innovation while simultaneously using it as a wedge to expand
its'' own list of (often inferior) products into new arenas.
As a ``punishment'' for this, the settlement proposes (among
other things) to allow Microsoft to --increase-- its exposure in
one of the few major niches in which MS is not yet the major
presence--education hardware and software. The purpose for assisting a
known malicious monopoly to expand that monopoly as a form of punishment
escapes me.
Please do NOT settle on the provided basis. The proposed terms will, at
best, do little or nothing to inhibit Microsoft and could, at worst,
actually prove to enhance the MS market position.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Robert Giffords
MTC-00022889
From: Jason Blackwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
This e-mail is a response to a request for public comments by the court
hearing the case U.S. v. Microsoft. After reviewing the Proposed Final
Judgment (PFJ) there are many gaps that exist allowing Microsoft to
continue with it's unfair, restrictive, and threatening business practices.
Microsoft's anti competitive measures coupled with their restrictive
licensing terms ensures they remain the de facto Operating System for the
Intel-compatible computing platform. Listed below are two reasons I must
still use Microsoft products, some chilling thoughts, followed by comments
on the PFJ remedies.
Given the choice, I would not use Microsoft Windows as an operating system
at all. However, I am forced to use MS Windows because as the de facto
Operating System for home and business, and by virtue that MS Office is the
widest used Office/Business solution, I often have to use Microsoft
products to communicate with customers and business partners. Second,
because the Windows operating system is on nearly every retail Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Intel machine sold, users are forced to use
some version of Windows. Microsoft's control over the OEM is stifling to
say the least. Microsoft currently uses brutish tactics to force OEMs to
sell their machines with a copy of Windows on it and nothing else, or the
OEM faces retaliatory actions from Microsoft. This practice does not allow
the introduction of alternate operating systems to the OEM customer base
thereby ensuring Windows is the most widely distributed operating system.
I am equally disturbed by the recent actions Microsoft, specifically
Microsoft Network (MSN), has taken to become the ``Premiere''
Internet Service Provider (ISP) of Qwest. Microsoft's terrifying vision of
the ``.NET'' initiative is only further reached by this move. How
better to ensure that their corporate vision as the single point of
presence for entertainment, news, communication, and more important,
ensuring their internet standards are widely accepted. The answer is
simple, become the ``default'' ISP for one of the largest
residential Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) providers in the United States. I
fear that the garish tactics displayed by Microsoft in the past towards
OEMs and Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) will be used on the competing
ISPs.
Comments and proposed remedies:
1) At no point does the PFJ obligate Microsoft to release specifications
for current and future file formats be made available. Undocumented
Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
By not allowing the specifications to be made public, any attempts by
commercial or Open Source initiatives to make available a compatible
program are hindered in doing so. I don't believe this is an Intellectual
Property concern, more an effort to ensure there are no competing products
made available to consumers. The file formats must be made available to
ensure not only cross platform, but same platform operating system
different programs can interoperate. Giving the consumer the ability to use
what ever platform/Operating System they desire. The government must not
allow the specifications be available to commercial entities only, but to
all competing entities.
2) The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs. However,
Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM shipping
Personal Computers (PCs) containing a competing Operating System but no
Microsoft operating system. This makes no sense to me. Currently Microsoft
can retaliate against OEMs who put both Windows and an alternate Operating
System on a PC, commonly known as dual booting or multi boot. There are
currently no provisions in place to protect the OEM against these tactics.
Provisions need to be in place that allow the OEM to install what ever
operating system they desire or the customer requests, on their products,
whether it be Windows, an alternate Operating System, or a dual/multi boot
environment. By not providing for the OEMs freedom and flexibility to do
so, the PFJ allows Microsoft to continue the use of their current tactics
to enforce their monopoly.
3) Microsoft uses license terms that prohibit the use of Windows-compatible
competing operating systems the use of their products and discriminates
against ISVs who ship Open Source applications. The End Users License
Agreement (EULA) of many Microsoft products ties the hands of developers
who intend to develop for Windows-compatible and competing operating
systems. The restrictions imposed by EULA of the Microsoft Platform SDK
make it illegal to run programs built with Visual C++ on Windows-compatible
or competing operating systems. The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK
EULA expressly prohibits the distribution of associated redistributable
components in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. This
directly impacts competing middleware products that are to be made
available to competing operating systems. Exclusionary behaviors allowed by
the PFJ directly contribute to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by
any and all competing operating systems as well as ISV developed
middleware.
Sincerely yours,
Jason D. Blackwell
MTC-00022890
From: Roger Marquis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan 24 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division, Suite 1200
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The DOJ's Proposed ``Settlement'' it is so full of holes as to be
entirely ineffective in curbing MS'' illegal business practices. I
hope the transparency of this settlement is not lost upon the court. To
accept the DOJ's proposal would:
A) keep this case in court for many, many years to come,
B) deny consumers the right to choose applications free from monopoly
influence,
C) thwart the free-market competition needed to make software development
profitable, and
C) deeply damage many American's belief in the US system of law. The DOJ's
proposal would prove that laws apply only to those without the resources to
litigate.
The only effective solution, the only solution that will restore a level
playing field, not surprisingly the remedy previously entered, is splitting
the company into two, OS and applications.
Until Microsoft is split, thereby forcing the OS division to publish ALL
file formats, ALL communication protocols, and ALL APIs my business as many
other's will continue to be
[[Page 27240]]
harmed. We will continue to waste time and money trying to correct
intentional incompatibilities between MS and third party software, and our
users will continue to be exposed to a completely unnecessary risk of
viruses, trojans, and data loss. I urge the court to reject the DOJ's
proposed remedy and restore Judge Jackson's order of June 7, 2000.
Sincerely,
Roger Marquis
CEO, Roble Systems
P.O.Box 46
Palo Alto, CA 94302
(650) 323-2777
(also sent via fax)
MTC-00022891
From: Greg Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:54pm
Subject: One computer professional's opinion--they are too powerful
I've been casually following this case since it started and in the process
have almost completely changed my opinion of Microsoft and what the
government should do about their monopoly. I've been a long-time user of
Microsoft products at home and at work (I'm an Information Technology
specialist for a medium sized software company). I generally find their
software pretty good and my first reaction to the anti-trust case was to
wonder why people picked on Microsoft so much. I figured that the other
companies were sore losers that just couldn't compete.
After reading countless articles about their dirty tactics and having
experiencing one too many incidents in which Microsoft's strong-arming has
affected me and my ability to do my job, at this point I almost feel like
no punishment would be too strong. A couple steps that seem entirely
justified:
1) Split them up. Make Windows separate from Office and from developer
tools.
2) Force them hand over office file formats to a standards body and severly
fine them if they try to ``embrace and extend'' these standards
as they have in the past.
3) Force them to stop developing web browsers. Just do something that will
hurt them, force greater competition and allow more standards to be created
and followed in the technology field. I strongly feel that Microsoft is
just too powerful and if something isn't done, they will hurt far more than
help the company I work for and other businesses in the U.S. Keep in mind
that these comments are coming from someone who relies on and basically
likes Windows and other products that Microsoft makes.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Greg Watson [email protected]
MTC-00022892
From: Steven O'Toole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea. I agree with: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Steven O'Toole
21 Calavera
Irvine, CA 92606
MTC-00022893
From: John Quigley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am of the firm belief that the pending United States vs. Microsoft
settlement is a profoundly bad course to take, and strongly advised both
parties to return to the proverbial drawing boards--this, in order to
cement a more restrictive penalty for Mircrosoft's unbearable anti-
competitive maneuvers. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
John Quigley
Student, SUNY Maritime College
74 North Street
Greenwich, CT
06830
MTC-00022894
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:55pm
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 my brief comments to be considered under the Tunney Act
regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement.
The courts have already clearly established that Microsoft has used a
monopoly power to unfair competitive advantage in the market during the
last several years. Please do not let Microsoft's attorneys turn this
settlement into a toothless, ineffective attempt at rectifying the
situation. Rather, I hope that you will reconsider many of the points of
the settlement to insure that actions are indeed in place to prevent
Microsoft from further abuses of its monopoly power. As a computer
professional with no financial ties to Microsoft's success or failure, I
can truly say that from my perspective the industry would be better served
by this result.
The issue with which I most take offense is the excessively narrow
definition of many terms in the settlement. It seems that the existing
definitions of Windows, Windows API, Middleware and many other such terms
are so narrow that they would be easily sidestepped by attorneys at
Microsoft in future revisions.
The trial is still under way and already Microsoft is pursuing it's next
great attempt at strangling an area of the computer industry with it's
invasive .NET architecture. It is bad enough that an end user who is
uneducated already feels browbeaten into using Microsoft's Passport
features in Windows XP, but when system administrators will be more and
more frequently pressured into using Microsoft technologies on servers for
other reasons they will have little other choice but to use Microsoft's
middleware as well as their operating system because of Microsoft's
practice of so tightly integrating their own ancillary technologies.
Please, earn your keep. Do your job. Don't make me embarrassed for my
government.
All the Best,
Scott Walker
San Francisco, CA
Scott ``Chopper'' Walker
Consulting Network Engineer
Autodesk BCS
[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
415.356.3259
MTC-00022895
From: Kerry Kartchner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a terrible idea. There is nothing to stop
Microsoft form flagrantly violating the law again. They clearly have shown
from past history that they have no respect for the law; but the settlement
as proposed does not specify any significant enforcement mechanism.
Furthermore, the settlement does not remedy Microsoft's attempts to
restrict barrier to entry by means of their Windows Monopoly by the most
direct route: Sections III.D and III.E prevent information relesed by
Microsoft be used to create competing operating systems that can utilize a
common API--competition IS the best means of eroding monopoly power.
Forcing ISV's only to create products solely for Windows only extends
Microsoft's monopoly power. If, as Microsoft claims, they are an innovative
company they will surely produce the best operating system product and
their software will be chosen--but if their product is not best, other
products should be able to run programs written to Windows APIs.
Respectfully,
Kerry Kartchner
836 Doyle Rd
San Jose CA 95129
MTC-00022896
From: Logan Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my views on the States v. Microsoft case. I believe
that in the past few attempts to reach a settlement the DOJ has been very
lax in pushing for a settlement that is acceptable to the states. Even
though Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly status, they
seem to be in control of their own punishment! I think that the DOJ needs
to regain its footing in the trial and push for a settlement that fits the
goals of the states, along with providing sufficient punishment to
Microsoft. To this end, I believe that Microsoft should not be broken up,
but regulated in ways that would prevent it from unfairly crushing its
competition. One idea for this would be to have a regulatory board set up
that contains representatives from each state, or at least the states that
comprise the plaintiff in this case. It is, however, not my position to
suggest settlements in this matter; I only wish to show my support for the
states case and for the regulation of the abusive monopoly that is
Microsoft.
Thank you.
Logan Hall
ASU Information Technology CPCOM 3N54
[[Page 27241]]
(480) 965-6070
MTC-00022897
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:54pm
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,
Howard Ross
55 Co. Rt. 23
Harrisville, NY 13648-3225
MTC-00022898
From: Bill J.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's bring this settlement to a conclusion so Microsoft can concentrate on
running the business and get out of the legal quagmire. If you're so
concerned about saving the consumer money, why not look at the rounding up
of minutes policy being practiced by the wireless phone industry.
MTC-00022900
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I believe it is a prudent and reasonable conclusion on the Court's behalf
to bring this case to a settlement with the agreement put together under
the direction of Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
The case against Microsoft was primarily dredged up out of competitive
spite. And now, many commentators, pundits, and others offering opinions
have missed the bigger point. The technology industry is one built on
competition, and it advances and evolves through that function. Government
regulators, however, must move at the unhurried rate of political
expedience, not at the eye-popping rate of development which the
information technology industry moves.
Settling this case is most certainly in the public interest. We should
bring innovation back to the marketplace and return the technology sector
to its competitive spirit.
The economy is better off with Microsoft in the marketplace, and their
place at the table in the technology sector generates jobs, opens markets,
and brings investment. It only makes sense to settle this case. I urge you
to do just that.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Bowles
MTC-00022901
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:53pm
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,
Marilyn Phillips
807 E. Main St
Richmond, MO 64085
MTC-00022902
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to vehemently object to the proposed settlement between the
U.S. Department of Justice, et. al. v. Microsoft. My reasons for objecting
to this proposed settlement strongly reflect those expressed by Matthew
Szulik, CEO of Red Hat, Inc. in his testimony to Congress on December 12,
2001 (http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/speech2.html) and those of Ganesh
Prasad, as outlined in an open letter available at LinuxToday (http://
linuxtoday.com/
news--story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-O
P-MS).
I object to this proposed settlement because:
1. It fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its statutory violations,
including the use of those gains to mount its legal defense.
The proposed settlement includes no punishment for Microsoft's repeated
violations of the law; it contains only (weak and ineffective) mechanisms
to attempt to prevent future wrongdoing. No monetary penalty of any kind is
imposed upon Microsoft by this proposed settlement. Microsoft would not
have made its huge profits without the benefit of its illegally maintained
monopoly; therefore, a large part of its current wealth is illegally
earned.
A long-established principle holds that convicted criminals should not be
able to use ill-gotten gains to pay for their legal defense. Yet even after
Microsoft's conviction, it is still using its nearly limitless wealth to
defend itself while several of the plaintiff States are agreeing to settle
the case because they are running of out funds to pursue it.
Has fairness and justice in America been totally replaced by the principle
that ``those with the biggest pile of cash win''?
2. It fails to ensure that competition within the computing industry will
be restored, and in fact, contains provisions which will hamper one of
Microsoft's only remaining viable competitors: the open source software
community.
The terms of this proposed settlement and the proposed mechanisms for
ensuring Microsoft's adherence to them are so weak and vague as to be
laughable. Massachusetts Attorney General was overly optimistic when he
said ``Five minutes after any agreement is signed with Microsoft,
they'll be thinking of how to violate the agreement.'' You can be sure
that they will not wait that long. Microsoft's survival depends upon their
predatory and illegal business practices: I have no doubt that they have
already developed a strategy for conducting their post-settlement business
that will push the terms of the proposed settlement to their limits, and
then proceed right through its (very large) loopholes. With their huge cash
reserves and this flimsy proposed settlement, Microsoft has little to fear
from their already vanquished commercial competitors (nor, obviously, from
the DOJ). Several provisions of the proposed settlement contain terms which
will regulate Microsoft's business relationship with other companies,
particularly with respect to licensing. However, these provisions are
worded in such a way that they pertain solely to corporate or other
commercial entities. They will not hamper Microsoft's ability to retaliate
against developers of open source projects, which are their only viable
competition. Most open source projects are created by volunteers who have
no corporate structure for entering into license agreements nor the
financial resources required.
Microsoft is deeply concerned about the competitive threat presented by
open source software and has identified it as the single biggest threat to
their business. However, there are no terms in this proposed settlement
that will provide developers of open source software with the same
protections as commercial entities. This is not surprising, since the
proposed settlement appears to have been custom tailored to meet
Microsoft's own specifications.
3. It was an agreement reached during a period of national tragedy for the
purpose of political expediency, not for ensuring an adequate remedy. This
proposed settlement is clearly the product of political expediency and is
not commensurate with the outcome of the trial and appeals process.
Microsoft was convicted for illegally maintaining its monopoly and that
conviction was upheld on appeal. Yet the DOJ has agreed to a proposed
settlement that is much more favorable to Microsoft than the one that was
on the table before it was convicted.
Federal District Court Judge Kollar-Kotelly pressed the DOJ and Microsoft
to settle the case, saying a quick resolution of the case had become more
important ``in light of recent tragic events affecting our
nation.''
[[Page 27242]]
While the events of September 11 were truly tragic, they do not justify a
mild slap on the wrist for a convicted criminal enterprise that has used
illegal business practices to wrong millions of consumers, destroy
innumerable competitors, and destroy efficiency and innovation within the
computing industry. How many other convicted criminals have received a such
a mild sentence since September 11 on the grounds that ``times are
tough''?
Microsoft continually argues that they should be free to innovate, but in
reality monopolies do not do so. Economics teaches that monopolies are
always bad: they stifle innovation, they do not create it. It is not in
their interest to do so, as they have already captured the market.
Microsoft has therefore already negatively affected the economy. Ending its
monopoly will undoubted cause short-term turmoil with the nation and its
economy, but it is the only way that true innovation and competition within
the computing industry can be restored.
A proper settlement for this case must be commensurate with the clear-cut
findings of the trial and appeals, and must assertively address consumer's
and competitor's interests. The terms of the current proposed settlement
address only the issue of preventing future inappropriate behavior by
Microsoft. The provisions of the current proposed settlement are so weak
and vague that they are unlikely to impair Microsoft's illegally maintained
dominance of the computing industry in any material way.
The proposed settlement does not address: (1) reimbursing consumers for the
excess profits Microsoft has earned as a result of its illegal behavior;
(2) reparations by Microsoft to restore competition and choice within the
marketplace; or (3) punitive damages over and above reimbursement and
reparations to serve as a warning to future monopolists.
The proposed settlement is fatally flawed and must be rejected as not being
in the public interest.
Jeffrey L. Clark
Software Engineer
12161 Holly St. NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55448
MTC-00022903
From: Lynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:58pm
Subject: Re:DOJ and Microsoft
In my opinion Microsoft has probably done more for the Computer Software
part of our economy than any other company.
Netscape even gave their browser software away for free to any educational
institute or any student (about 90% free at the time), long before
Mircosoft got into the browser business. Now Netscape is complaining foul
because Microsoft did the same except it was free to everyone (100%) Why
not let Microsoft get back to business without all these suits as a
hindrance so they can help our economy to recover* *
Thank you,
Lynn Vance
[email protected]
MTC-00022904
From: Bill Nicholls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:59pm
Subject: Comments on MS Antitrust Proposed Settlement
[email protected]
To whom it may concern:
I am an Information Technology practitioner with more than 37 years of
experience. I am writing to object to the totally inadequate proposed
settlement with Microsoft.
I have watched and experienced Microsoft's aggressive and illegal practices
since 1987. They have repeatedly injured me by using their monopoly to
pressure and harass other software vendors with better products out of
business.
The first of these that I personally experienced was Desqview, an excellent
product well ahead of Microsoft's early Windows. Microsoft repeatedly made
changes to shipping versions of Windows that caused Desqview to crash. Over
time, most people gave up on Desqview because even though fixes to Desqview
were available, back in those days, they were slow and difficult to get.
I won't go into all the different tricks they used unless you want to see
my full listing of direct and indirect injuries. The failure of adequate
corrective actions with the first antitrust suit against Microsoft led
predictably to the current situation.
To call the current proposed settlement a sellout or inadequate simply
reflects the limits of my language skills to describe the situation
politely. If applied, these limited actions will actually help Microsoft by
enabling them legal protection from needing to divulge anything related to
security. Anything could be easily interpreted by MS to include just about
every product they make.
This may not be the worst of it. The billion dollar compensation that
enables MS to step heavily into an area they don't have a majority in
(schools) is wrong both on that basis, and because it is based on the list
price of MS software, whose real cost is minuscule to them.
The gagged monitors is another useless step. It is more than useless
because it gives the appearance of monitoring without the substance. In
fact this whole proposed settlement is form without substance. If the only
action the monitors can really take is to institute another (useless)
lawsuit, then you shouldn't bother.
What then is really required?
Meaningful reform for MS practices will not be trivial to implement. It
needs to deal with certain existing and emerging problems:
* Open up file formats to competitors at least six months in advance of
delivery to customers.
* Insure that MS uses only documented API calls. Their use of undocumented
calls creates a huge advantage over competitors.
* Insure that MS may not unilaterally implement modified public standards
such as are found in the World Wide Web consortium. If they want changes,
they must work through the standards group and have them published.
* Standardize the volume discounts for a specific volumes irrespective of
customer.
* Forbid the practice of bundling free software, such as Internet Explorer,
into the operating system. Internet Explorer was developed at large
expense, illegally subsidized by their OS monopoly. It was sold below cost
in order to kill Netscape, with the ultimate objective of altering the
Internet's operation to impose another monopoly.
* Forbid the practice of increasing prices to preload companies if they
want to unbundle MS products.
* Free up the initial boot desktop setup completely.
* Insist that Passport be open to authentication *and* authorization.
There are probably other remedies that are needed, including an independent
arbitration board knowledgeable in the IT business to resolve disputes
between third party developers and Microsoft. I would be willing to serve
on such a board.
The settlement that this court develops with Microsoft will determine to a
great extent whether the future of computing is diverse and energetic, or
moribund and monopolistic. Microsoft now has more power to dictate the
direction and future of IT than IBM ever did when they were ``IBM and
the seven dwarves.'' I worked then for IBM's competitors, and I can
say from experience that Microsoft is a much greater threat.
Please keep in mind that Microsoft has $36 Billion in cash reserves. A lot
of that money was earned through the fruits of their monopoly extensions in
office suites, internet programs and abuse of their restrictive preload
agreements. Any fine applied to MS should make enough of a dent in their
cash reserve that they are not ever tempted to risk that again.
Sincerely,
Bill Nicholls
[email protected]
MTC-00022905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:57pm
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,
John Mulhall
7 Evergreen Lane
Cazenovia, NY 13035
[[Page 27243]]
MTC-00022906
From: Doug Breitbart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Settlement
You Honor,
Seems to me the only real way to level the playing field does not have to
do with a cosmetic Microsoft settlement cum gesture, but an order
compelling Microsoft to disgorge the gains of their wrongful behavior. That
would be in the form of a monetary penalty roughly equal to 85% of the
Company's liquid assets and reserves, said money to be paid to all members
of the class damaged by their actions, which would include the states,
companies, and any other plaintiffs. With Microsoft deprived of the cash
reserves that enable them to do the damage they do (ie give away Explorer
to decimate Netscape, simply because they can), and their competitors in
receipt of fresh competitive operating capital, a competitive landscape and
environment would then result.
I think the proposed settlement is a fraction of what is appropriate. Thank
you for your review of the foregoing.
Sincerely,
Doug Breitbart
Douglas L. Breitbart
Principal
BedRock Ventures LLC
315 East Glen Ave.
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
201-689-2150
fax: 201-689-2151
email: [email protected]
MTC-00022907
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:56pm
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,
Maurean Winger
618 Dutton Dr.
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
MTC-00022908
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:56pm
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,
Phil Borton
3919 Lower Roswell Rd
Marietta, GA 30068
MTC-00022909
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:58pm
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,
Herman Meinert
5327 Constitution Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80915-1100
MTC-00022910
From: Mike Sendlakowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with Ralph Naders objections to the Microsoft settlement, as well
as other criticisms I have read.
Please reconsider the settlement and the effect that it will have on the
shrinking technology universe.
Mike Sendlakowski
Sendlakowski Consulting
MTC-00022911
From: Nile Geisinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:01pm
Subject: Reject the proposed settlement
To whom it may concern,
I have been carefully following the antitrust case against Microsoft for
the past two years. I am dismayed to learn that after the findings of facts
were upheld on appeal, the proposed settlement will not prohibit similiar
behavior in the future. The language in the settlement is vague, full of
loopholes, and does not cover a number of anti-compeitive scenarios. This
is not a theorectical problem. In 1995, Microsoft agreed to a consent
degree that restricted the company from bundling its browser with its
operating system. It then took advantage of the vague language in the
consent decree to ``integrate'' its browser with its operating
system. The vague language of yesterday is the foundation of today's case.
The vague language of today will only lead to future cases.
Please end this cycle by rejecting the proposed settlement,
MTC-00022912
From: Flowers Christian-P29364
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft continues to flout the law in forcing users to sign up for
specific services. In particular, the reliance on Passport for transactions
is disturbing. Notwithstanding technical security issues, in pushing and
requiring Passport, a large user base can be quickly built. This can be
easily used to exclude other personal identification schemes, and shut out
applications, retailers, other operating systems, or anyone else Microsoft
feels may be competition.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue, they will continue to not only tie in
services but REQUIRE their use. The common user will take what is in front
of them and convenient. Whether it's Passport, .NET, WMA format, Microsoft
will do everything it can to force users to be dependent upon them. Once
that dependency exists, it will be difficult if not impossible to remove
it.
There are many other reasons, and many other better written responses, but
I felt it necessary to add at least my 2 cents.
Sincerely,
Christian Flowers...
MTC-00022913
From: Ron Skoog
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
In my opinion the proposed settlement with Microsoft does nothing to
restrain the anti-competitive nature of their business practices. A
similarly ineffective settlement was attempted in the early 1990s and did
nothing to curb Microsoft. This company is infamous for it's twisting of
any legal agreement to mean what it wants. If the settlement is not
explicit and capable of easy monitoring Microsoft will simply force any
future disagreements into court in order to delay any decisions and in the
hopes of overturning parts of the settlement.
The settlement with Microsoft should be as strict as what IBM had, and
still has, to
[[Page 27244]]
comply with. Microsoft needs to be partitioned into distinct divisions and
all information passed between the divisions must be available to outside
companies. This would force the disclosure of the operating system and
application APIs to companies that are trying to write products that
interface with Microsoft products.
The divisioning of Microsoft should be into two operating systems
divisions: home and corporate, an applications division, a networking
division, and a home appliance or embedded systems division.
Ronald Skoog
Software Engineer
Manufacturing Engineering
TrueTime, Inc.
3750 Westwind Blvd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
telephone: 707-636-1840
fax: 707-527-6640
[email protected]/
[mailto:[email protected]/] www.truetime.com
[http://www.truetime.com]
MTC-00022914
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:02pm
Subject: support for ms.
I want to let you know that I support Microsoft, all their policies and
business practices. I am all for it, and so are all my friends and people I
know. Thank you Manuel H. Avila
MTC-00022915
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:04pm
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,
David Gray
PO Box 789
Lexington, SC 29071
MTC-00022916
From: Marc Conover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marc Conover
23280 NE 15th Street
Redmond, WA 98074
January 24, 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 settled. As a former
program and Multinational OEM Account manager for Microsoft, I understand
the rationale behind bringing this case against Microsoft.
However, the reasons behind the initial lawsuit have been resolved since
the inception of the litigation.
At this point, there is no reason to continue with the litigation. The
terms of the settlement are reasonable. In fact, they go beyond what should
reasonably be expected of Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer
manufacturers rights to configure Windows in such a way so that consumers
may access non-Microsoft software or Microsoft software. This will result
in more choice for the consumer. Isn't this the aim of any antitrust
lawsuit? Additionally, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against either
computer manufacturers or third party distributors who promote the
competition's product. This provision should dispel beliefs that Microsoft
is acting in a predatory fashion.
The states that have refused to sign on to the settlement agreement are
driven by greed. I applaud the Department of Justice's efforts to settle
this case. I am hopeful that the settlement is approved by the Court. Thank
you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Marc Conover
MTC-00022917
From: Greg Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Never I have seen a settlement that seems so out of touch with the findings
of fact.
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and found to have abused their
position as a monopoly to retain their dominance over the PC market. Other
instances of similar behavior (Ma Bell) have typically resulted in
punishment for the those who broke the written and known law. Microsoft has
a problematic attitude of denial towards their guilt and how to remedy
their abuse of our business system. Any settlement option should be a
instant enforcement, as Microsoft has proven to break and distort consent
decrees in the past, so far as to go completely against the intent of the
consent decree re Windows 95 bundling.
If something is not done to punish Microsoft for their illegal bullying
tactics, they will, and to this day do, continue to use their market
dominance to leverage themselves into new monopolies.
Already Microsoft is using it's clout to steal the console games market
from Nintendo and Sony. Microsoft has gone so far as to purchase several of
the top Games developers for PC games, to deny their products to the market
competition. They are further using their massive cash reserves to
``sell'' these Xbox's at a loss, some have estimated as high as
$100 loss per box. Why can they throw money down the drain like this?
Because when they own the market completely, they can make all the money
there is to make indefinitely.
If this court does not punish Microsoft much more harshly than the remedies
proposed, there will be many dire consequences:
-Microsoft will continue to monopolize more and more market segments. This
will ultimately cost consumers much more money, and their freedoms of
choice.
-Microsoft (with $38 billion in cash and monopolies over several major
markets such as office suits, OS, Web Browsers etc) appears to be above the
law in the current situation, the government does seem to be able to apply
pre-defined legal remedies appropriately. As Microsoft grows larger and
larger it will become even harder to control and punish for wrong doing, it
may become a threat to the democracy and freedom we hold dear in America.
-With a 5-4 court appointed US President already sitting in office,
people are loosing faith in the American justice system, Enron's recent
events have only added to this feeling. If Microsoft is allowed to abuse
other companies, and US constituents so blatantly without recrimination,
not only will Microsoft continue business this way, but other business will
be forced to practice once illegal business practices to be able to
compete. The overall effect will have a massive damaging effect on the
economy and our free democratic way of life.
-Further with Microsoft already flouting the same type of shady illegal and
unethical business practices currently while under trial, it is reasonable
to assume the will only intensify or at least continue these practices
after this trial is over. Since Microsoft's actions are illegal under our
present law it is only inevitable that will end up back in court again.
Failure to quell Microsoft's stranglehold on the market would historically
reflect poorly on this court, as the next jury will ask, ``why wasn't
this handled sooner?'' This would not only beg the question of
favoritism, or outright payoffs to the current court, but also ultimately
would end up costing the American people much more money to run through
this whole circus act again.
I plead with this court and the current administration in control of the
DOJ to not risk criminal charges down the road from blatantly and grossly
ignoring the facts in favor of Microsoft (the defendant has already been
found GUILTY by findings of fact.)
Sincerely,
Gregory Cunningham
MTC-00022918
From: Jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:08pm
Subject: My Comments.
Respected Judge,
The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Government is in my
opinion biased towards Microsoft.
Microsoft is using it's influence and is trying to eliminate more
competition that is out there. Microsoft's motto seems to be
``Eliminate ALL competition''. This kind of mindset is not what
the United States was founded upon, sure, they have the money to
[[Page 27245]]
buy their way through anywhere, but, Justice isn't something one should be
able to buy. If this settlement is pushed through, then the world
governments will not have any chance to fight the money of Microsoft. As it
is, Microsoft throws lots of money to the third world countries and is
buying it's way through there.
There are operating systems out there which are more efficient, and less
expensive for the businesses to use. Once the managers of these businesses
are given the opportunity to learn about these new options, i'm quite sure
they will make efficient use and build better businesses, which inturn will
make the world economies stronger as costs of doing business fall.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
Sincerely
Jeff Bhavnanie.
MTC-00022919
From: David McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I apologize for the sharp tone, but this is the only way to express the
dissappointment in the DOJ's buckling resolve to prosecute Microsoft: I am
outraged to hear that the DOJ is not following its'' responsibility to
protect the consumer and free-market competition.
Microsoft has CLEARLY exceeded the bounds of legality and continues to use
it's monopoly in nefarious ways. What is worse is that its'' Ad
campaign and actions have arrogantly flouted it's power DURING THE TRIAL. A
mere mortal can only observe this circus and gag. If this is how MS acts
during the trial, imagine what it will be like after a ``slap on the
wrist''.
What vile gall MS had in proposing the ``$1 Bil, K12 aid''
settlement, is overshadowed by the limp and impotent spine demonstrated by
the defenders of the people.
To those who know the computer industry, it is well known that MS is on the
wrong side of ``innovation'' and all that is good. Not because
they are financially successful, but because of their never-ending
``legally gray'' methods of persuing their ruthless greed.
Competition is something to be eliminated, and they are succeeding.
You have failed us, the people, and all that we can think is that perhaps
big business is indeed more powerful that the government. I encourage you
to re-evaluate your policy of bowing to MS, and not enforcing the law and
the very spirit of what makes this country great. Please, do what is right,
redouble your efforts and seek to break up this behemoth of criminal
behavior. MS will not stop on its own, and it will continue to take
advantage of the consumer.
David McKee
Software Engineer
MTC-00022920
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:07pm
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,
Karen Stanley
180 Dover Rd. NW
Cartersville, GA 30120
MTC-00022921
From: Kip Gebhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:08pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my opinion (under the Tunney Act) on the Microsoft
Antitrust Settlement.
The proposed settlement is not sufficient in punishing Microsoft for its
previous anti-competitive practices nor does it do anything to ensure that
Microsoft will not remain an illegal monopoly or more likely, extend its
control into other areas of technology. As a programmer since the age of 10
(22years) I have had experience in almost all areas of computing and
software. I have watched Microsoft's rise to ``power'' and the
simultaneous strangle hold place on their competitors. As late-comers to
the internet arena Microsoft pulled out all the stops (i.e. fair
competition) by preventing other browsers (Netscape) from being afforded
desktop placement in their Operating System. Simultaneously they sought to
redesign their Operating System to force users to use their browser. On all
fronts they engaged in unfair and illegal anti-competitive practices.
As a result we are left with one browser that has 80% market share. Is it
the best browser. NO! It is buggy, doesn't conform to standards, and
generally is a major headache for web developers. Yet I am forced to
support it because Microsoft has squeezed out all other competitors
illegally.
Please rethink the settlement so that it actually has an impact on
Microsoft and works to improve outlook for software, the internet and what
may come in the future of information technology.
Thank you,
Kip Gebhardt
Software Engineer
MTC-00022922
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Department of Justice:
I am very distressed by the settlement that has been proposed by your
office concerning the Microsoft case. It seems to me that the Bush
administration is circumventing copyright law in the favor of Microsoft not
by passing laws through congress, but simply by refusing to enforce the
law. I find this terribly distressing. President Bush was elected to office
and swore an oath that he would uphold the laws of this country. His
behavior through your office with regards to the Microsoft case, and his
recent involvement with Enron, suggest to me that the Bush administration
is more concerned with the welfare of huge corporations than with the
proper functioning of the free market and the overall wellbeing of
America's citizens.
Sincerely,
Joseph Sutherland
3455 Table Mesa Dr. Apt. F153
Boulder, CO 80305
USA
MTC-00022923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:07pm
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,
Louis Laudel
58 Webster Acres
St. Louis, MO 63119
MTC-00022924
From: Morelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I live in California and have been in the high tech industry for over 10
years. My job in marketing has been to speak with literally thousands of
customers about network management software. I spoke mainly to key decision
makers and cio's who approve budgets and purchase software. I saw major
trends such as a switch in the marketplace from Novell Netware servers to
Microsoft Windows. This happened in droves, not because anyone was twisting
their arms to switch to Microsoft, but because their products were and are
superior.
[[Page 27246]]
There is no doubt that microsoft is a very aggressive competitor, but sirs/
madams, it seems as though the marketplace realizes that they may no be
able to beat microsoft in some instances and are involving government
bodies and attorney's to help prevent the possible demise of their own
companies. I know may people who work for microsoft both personally and
professionaly. This company is by far one of the most top notch companies
I've ever seen; from rewarding job performance, to employee benefits, etc,
microsoft expects a lot from their employees, and rewards them through
generous options programs, paternity leave, etc. This is why they have
produced THE BEST products on the market. I believe the settlement they've
offered in fair and just. Please consider this message from one who has an
eye on the market through direct customer contact and knows that microsoft
has become a superior company on its own merits. To punish inappropriately
would be a grave mistake.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Morelli-Parvizi
Scotts Valley, California
MTC-00022925
From: Scott Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft are as evil as a company can get. Punish themwith extreme
prejudice.
Regards,
Scott Brown
Network Engineer
MTC-00022926
From: Kris Browne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed microsoft settlement is a bad idea. It will do nothing to
censure them from commiting the same acts over and over again in the
future, as they have done in the past after settlements, and does nothing
to actually punish them for their past crimes.
MTC-00022927
From: Mark Derickson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How is it LEGAL to NOT FIX BUGS in Windows 95 or 98 when the customers have
PAID for a WORKING package ??
Microsoft Continues to CHARGE for UPDATES when the UPDATES fix known ISSUE
and BUGS that should NOT have been in the code that the CUSTOMER PAID for.
Most of the issues in 95 were fixed in 98 but they STILL CHARGE MONEY even
though the CUSTOMER DID NOT GET FULL VALUE from the original operating
system.
Mark Derickson MCSE
Technical Customer Service
TrueTime, Inc.
3750 Westwind Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403
t 707.636.1839 f 707.527.6640
[email protected]/ www.truetime.com
MTC-00022928
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:10pm
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,
John Miller
3339 Lyric Lane
Quincy, IL 62301
MTC-00022929
From: Robert Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No! The proposed settlement is a joke. Microsoft already has a 90 percent
share of the operating system market. So, now you're going to hand them the
educational market as well? Microsoft is one of, if not the, biggest
monopolies in history and you're treating them as if they paid your wages,
not the disenfranchised public.
Microsoft and their business tactics are the worst thing to ever happen to
the computer industry. All they've given us is built-in obsolescence;
buggy, bloated software; susceptibility to endless security and virus
attacks; and countless, never-ending, expensive upgrades. On top of that
their practice of stifling innovation and squeezing out promising
competitive products has actually impeded the growth of the tech market.
All by themselves, Microsoft has turned off more people to the digital
revolution than any other factor.
Please save us from this blundering behemoth!
Robert Simmons
Ventura CA
MTC-00022930
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:11pm
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,
Kenneth Hisle
1279 Floyd Switch Estesburg Rd.
Eubank, KY 42567-8560
MTC-00022931
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:11pm
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,
Kenneth Hisle
1279 Floyd Switch Estesburg Rd.
Eubank, KY 42567-8560
MTC-00022932
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:10pm
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 -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.
[[Page 27247]]
Sincerely,
Jim Herring
16 Torey Pine#4
Little Rock, AR 72210
MTC-00022933
From: Ellen Vande Kieft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am no ``techie'', but I have been enjoying my computer and
email and all that the internet affords. I have Microsoft to thank for
making it possible and easy to navigate the internet and thereby freeing up
the world for me with simple clicks.
How can Microsoft's bundling all the wonderful and different functions be
``bad'' for consumers, I cannot understand. All the complaints
and law suits have been on behalf of Microsoft's competitors who cannot
compete in the marketplace and thus turn to the greedy lawyers to help them
get a slice of Microsoft's profits.
I hope the justice department will remember that it is the consumers they
are to protect and not the competitors of Microsoft. Ellen Vande Kieft San
Mateo 1/24/2002
MTC-00022934
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:11pm
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 Loudin
2825 New Center Drive
Sevierville, TN 37876-2270
MTC-00022935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:12pm
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,
Oscar Oscar
1212 Susan Lane
Apt. 168
Fort Worth, TX 76120
MTC-00022936
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:12pm
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,
Joanne Mateer
6407 West 83rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90045-2845
MTC-00022937
From: Mark A. Seaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement opinion
As a long standing member of the computing world, I feel that the current
``settlement'' with Microsoft is light handed at best. To call it
a ``slap on the wrist'' as many have, does not go far enough in
my mind. I have been involved in the microcomputing and personal computing
industry since 1982. In that time I have seen many companies attempt to go
head to head with Microsoft, only to lose significant market share due to
unfair trade practices. Companies with much larger market shares and far
superior products have dwindled to a bare existence, if they have survived
at all. Much of this is due to predatory pricing and aggressive
``behind-the-scenes'' deals that force products off the shelf in
favor of Microsoft backed products.
As the former Vice-President of Operations for a pioneer PC manufacturer
and developer, our firm watched as Microsoft forced us to bundle their
operating system with our hardware, or face losing the ability to sell
their product at all. If systems were found to have alternate operating
systems loaded on them, even if at the customers requests, we would be
heavily sanctioned by Microsoft if not cut off from all product entirely.
Needless to say, we complied, if only to survive.
I hope that the Department of Justice will step back and look at the damage
and devastation that Microsoft has caused in this industry, forcing
computer manufacturers to bundle inferior products and causing on going
consternation in the consumers minds. Technical support facilities have to
be staffed with more personal than necessary in order to handle the flood
of calls whenever new products are introduced, with a great deal of the
problems caused by products forced upon the public by an all too powerful
company, with an unnatural monopolistic hold on the market.
I hope that you will consider this information as you move forward as well
as the other letters and e-mails that you have and will receive on this
matter.
Thank you for your time
Mark A. Seaver
Mark A. Seaver [email protected]
Information Systems Director 949-366-4950 (Tel)
The Consumer's Choice Network 760-944-7583 (Fax)
2033B San Elijo Avenue, Suite 420, Cardiff, CA 92007
ICANN, Member at Large
MTC-00022938
From: Josh Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever is listening:
The settlement helps Microsoft form yet another monopoly!!! It would weaken
companies like Apple that have been leaders in educational research, while
Microsoft build its business monopoly. What were you thinking when you
accepted Microsoft1s generous offer to take over the school market by
providing old code and a few bucks and entrap schools into dependence on
their products.
Jim Mills
Technology Consultant
Trotwood Madison City Schools
Trotwood, OH 45426
MTC-00022939
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:13pm
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.
[[Page 27248]]
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,
BRYAN MILLER
1776 Bicentennial Way
N.Providence, RI 02911
MTC-00022940
From: Ben Edge
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Department of Justice's proposed settlement with Microsoft is
excessively lenient. It does not go far enough to prevent future abuses of
Microsoft's monopoly position, and it does not punish Microsoft enough for
past illegal activity.
Microsoft was found to have acted illegally. It also committed perjury
during the trial, by introducing doctored evidence. For that reason alone,
I can understand Judge Jackson's attitude toward Microsoft. I frankly think
that the Judge's ruling ordering the split did not go too far. It is the
only remedy that has a chance to reign in Microsoft's illegal activities
without requiring continuous government monitoring. At the very least, the
proposed remedy put forth by the dissenting states is more appropriate than
the Department of Justice proposal.
Ben Edge
607 Moss Creek Drive
Cayce, SC 29033
803-796-1260
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00022941
From: William Stearman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement certainly seems a fair and equable to all
concerned,especially to the people who us their amazing products They need
the power to innovate and change the world for the better.
Regards, Bill Stearman.
MTC-00022942
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:14pm
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,
Loraine H. Davis
4828 Medical Drive Apt402
Bossier City, LA 71112
MTC-00022943
From: John Garrison, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please note AOL's recently announced law suit against Microsoft seems to be
an effort to undermine the settlement. It is apparent AOL is again using
the courts and political system to ``compete'' against Microsoft
instead of innovating and competing in the market place. Respectfully
submitted
John E. Garrison, Sr. mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00022944
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Concord, CA 94518-2207
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to say that I want to see Microsoft go back to business
without being further persecuted for being successful. I understand they
have agreed to settle the matter now pending and I believe that the
settlement is the best thing to do without wasting more time and money in
court. I believe the government should have never brought this suit against
Microsoft, so it is now incumbent upon the government to accept a
reasonable settlement.
Please accept and implement the agreement, and, most importantly, end the
federal lawsuit. Thank you.
Thomas Gorman
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00022945
From: William C Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this matter. I write as a low
profile user/consumer of the computer. Also, my comments are based upon a
somewhat limited knowledge of computer functions and technology.
I have always appreciated computer capabilities which would permit me to
get online and browse the internet without being confronted by a labyrinth
of confusing (to me, at least) maneuvers involving movements between
internet access and other, non-internet, computer usages. When Netscape
replaced Mosaic, a browser, as determined by my then employer, I developed
hopes for such ``one stop'' flexibility. In my perception, this
kind of access is a good thing for computer users--and definitely what
I wanted.
To my knowledge, Internet Explorer is the only product which actually
offers this availability. Why others did not come up with the same or
similar possibility, instead of fighting it with adjective laden
allegations, seems disappointing to me. As there might be other
alternatives to my understanding, I would hope they are to be exploited and
determined in the market place rather than seemingly endless litigation.
Continuing oposition to settlement suggests to me, a ``sore loser in
the market'' attitude and. perhaps, special interest political efforts
regarding a matter that ahould now be realized as settled. I do hope
settlement can at last be achieved.
Thank you for your attention.
William Watson
MTC-00022946
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:14pm
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,
Joeleen Lee
308 8th Street
Ogden, UT 84404
MTC-00022947
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:14pm
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
[[Page 27249]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wade Crawford
201 N. Mathew St
Porterville, CA 93257
MTC-00022948
From: Michael Logue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
I am sending you this because I understand that Microsoft is doing their
darndest to flood you with comments backing their side and i want you to
know that there are those of us out here who view Microsoft as a predatory
monopolist that must be effectively regulated in order for innovation to
thrive.
In spite of Microsoft's hype and PR campaign, I challenge anyone to come up
with one successful program that originated at Microsoft. All they do is
buy, steal, trick and intimidate.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Michael Logue The Grateful Union
http://www.earthguild.com/ Earth Guild: Tools Materials Books
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00022949
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:15pm
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 Simko
14500 Graef Rd.
Creedmoor, TX 78640-3973
MTC-00022950
From: Peter Hassenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir:
As an end user, there is a problem with Microsoft's monopoly of the
operating system software that I believe has not been addressed in the
negotiated settlement.
This has to do with the constant ``upgrades'' of the Windows
operating systems and the termination of support for those programs that
are ``phased out.'' Microsoft's policy is not to offer support or
updates to any Windows system that is not the current one or the one
immediately preceeding it. In other words, Microsoft no longer supports
Windows 95, Windows NT 4 or any earlier operating system software.
Since it has been ruled that Microsoft has the monopoly for PC systems, it
is forcing the users to upgrade whether the customer wants to or not. I
think that this is very unfair, and it should have been addressed in the
settlement. From what I have been reading, there are at least two more
upgrades by Microsoft in the development stage for their Windows systems.
The comsuming public will be forced to upgrade in order to obtain support
and/or receive any updates. Not everyone has the extra $ 100.00 to upgrade
Windows every time.
Microsoft should be compelled to offer support as well as updates to the
individual versions or releases of Windows for a period of no less than 7
years, and it should happen no more than once every two years. In this way,
the consummer might be able to afford to keep ahead of this vicious cycle
of ``phasing out'' support and updates to the operating system
software. Microsoft does not make the updating process easy for its users,
and this as well has not been addressed. A user is unable to pick and
download which updates to keep. There is no way for the PC user to download
and save these updates for the operating system on his computer. If one has
to reformat and reinstall an older Windows operating system that is no
longer supported, he/she is out of luck in obtaining the necessary updates.
Soon Microsoft will ``phase out'' Windows 98, and there will be
no way to get the necessary updates if one will have to reinstall that
operating system. This also should be addressed by the court. Of course,
these would significantly increase the expenses for Microsoft to maintain
the different Windows operating systems, but as a monopoly, there should be
some sort of regulation on Microsoft to prevent it from compelling the
personal computer user to constantly upgrade and pay such exorbinate prices
for them.
At the present rate, the PC user is forced by Microsoft to upgrade about
every two years in order to obtain the support and updates for their
Windows operating system software. Of course, a consumer could choose to
skip one release of Windows, but then he/she will be compelled to hop back
on the upgrade train and pay the price every couple of years.
In conclusion, I would like to see the court address these two problems in
the settlement with Microsoft:
1) Extension of the time for support and updaes for each Windows release.
2) Make available separate updates needed for unsupported Windows releases
and allow the user download and save them.
I appologize for not being able to write this very succinctly and better.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Hassenstein
221 East 21st Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57105
605-332-1053
MTC-00022951
From: Joseph Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm writing you to express my opposition to the DOJ's proposed remedy in
the Microsoft case.
I personally, have been harmed by Microsoft's illegal acts--I was for
three years employed by Be, Inc., who had marketed a competing operating
system, and had access to the PC-OS marketplace blocked by Microsoft. Be,
Inc., was forced out of the market by Microsoft's exclusionary contracts
with PC makers, and has since been forced out of business.
I have read the findings of fact, and do not see how the DOJ's proposed
settlemet can prevent Microsoft from further illegal activities.
I have read the states proposed alternate remedy, and find it to have a
better chance of preventing future illegal activities.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Yours Truly,
Joseph Palmer
(Former) Director of Hardware Engineering, Be, Inc.
3128 Acorn Court
San Jose, CA 95117
MTC-00022952
From: Marv Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
Hello,
As a professional programmer for 35 years, and as a user of Microsoft
software for the last 15 of those years, I feel that I have a fairly solid
basis of experience on which to make my comments on this situation.
Microsoft is most certainly a monopoly, as has been determined by the
courts. They are also most certainly predatory. In almost all of their
markets, at least one competitor has superior products. In spite of this,
Microsoft continues to dominate market after market.
There are several costs for this domination that are borne by all other
parties in the software field. First, good products are obliterated by the
juggernaut of Microsoft's domination of the OS market. By including their
products in packages, they make it impossible for anyone else to compete
with them.
Borland International had a magnificent product called Delphi, which was
far and away the best programmer development tool available. Yet, they are
a totally marginal tool today because Microsoft's Visual Basic had too
strong a following in corporations, which is a critical market segment for
these tools. This did not occur because VB was a better tool, but because
it was easily available and tied in with all of the other Microsoft
offerings.
A second cost is that fewer and fewer companies are willing to develop new
[[Page 27250]]
products because if the product is technically successful, they will be
attacked by Microsoft's bundling tactics before they gain enough market
share to make the product a financial success. Netscape Communicator is a
perfect example of this, and RealPlayer is likely to suffer the same fate.
Third, as Microsoft destroys competition, their products will inevitably
become more and more inferior, while they can demand a higher price for
them. The vast amounts of cash that they have accumulated would not have
been possible if they had had to compete in any real sense.
I worked for twenty years in a mainframe world dominated by IBM, and all of
these same problems existed then. But there are three critical differences.
First, there were far fewer users of computers at that time. The public did
not depend on them at all for its daily activities. Second, while IBM
dominated the OS and hardware platforms, it did not have much presence in
applications. Microsoft Office is a dominant application, and as such, most
users are unable to avoid Microsoft in any aspect of their work lives.
The third, and most important difference, is that IBM was an honorable
company that understood that they benefited by making their customers
successful. While they certainly charged a lot for their services, they
provided a very high level of service, and their software was extremely
dependable.
Microsoft provides almost no services, and their software is riddled with
bugs. XP is the first OS that does not crash often, and this is after 15
years of development. This is certainly not something that would be
acceptable if there were real competition. Even more important, Microsoft
exhibits an arrogance and lack of basic ethics on a regular basis.
Microsoft has clearly lied in court, lied to the American public, and
ignored the previous court-defined remedies. There is absolutely no doubt
in my mind that the very weak remedies agreed to by the Justice Department
will be ignored by Microsoft. They don't even acknowledge that the did
anything wrong, so it is absurd to think that they will change their
practices because of a basically unenforceable agreement. Even if they
followed the guidelines, it is not likely to make much changes. The
remedies do not address the essential issue of an excessively powerful
organization with the means and intention of dominating the lives of as
many people as they can.
I hate to think of the day when the United States government cannot
function without Microsoft support for software upon which all departments
will depend. I hate to think of an environment in which Microsoft controls
the Internet the way they currently control desktop computing. At that
point, there will be no way to stop them.
Thank You
Marv Anderson
650 573 5790
MTC-00022953
From: Ian Sliwinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:18pm
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 does it reduce their
ability to commit similar actions in the future against consumers.
The vast majority of the provisions do not appear to 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 against consumers.
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.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-intentioned,
it is wrong to reach a settlement just for settlement's sake especially if
past acts are not punished. It is my understanding that criminals must pay
for their crimes. The current proposed settlement does not hold convicted
criminals accountable for their actions as well as not addressing the
reduction of prohibited behavior in the future.
Respectfully,
Ian D. Sliwinski
MTC-00022954
From: John Oglesby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the current settlement agreement is grossly unfair to the consumers
who were ripped off and the competitors who were forced out of business.
This is a touchy feely settlement that does not address the injustices done
to Microsoft's victims.
John Oglesby
15910 88th Street S.E.
Snohomish WA 98290
MTC-00022955
From: Lurvey, Dan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm against the proposed Microsoft settlement. I feel that the settlement
only benefits Microsoft.
MTC-00022956
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:17pm
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,
Lyman Nicoll
2523 E Pinewood Ln
Layton, UT 84040
MTC-00022957
From: MERRILL,DAVE (HP-Corvallis,ex1)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am concerned with the current proposed settlement with the convicted
monopolistic company Microsoft. I believe that the current settlement does
not go far enough in creating an open and free market. The standards for
document formats and windows should be opened so that others have a change
to produce and market products other than Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Dave Merrill
MTC-00022958
From: Phillip Blanton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs, In response to your recent request for public comments with
regards to the court hearing the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. I understand
that Microsoft has been found guilty of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.
By virtue of Microsoft's de facto monopoly of the Operating System (OS)
market, I am compelled to use Microsoft products, which I otherwise would
not use. There are two reasons that I am compelled to use Microsoft
products. These reasons provide the rationale for my proposed remedies.
First, an overwhelming majority people use the Microsoft OS and their
associated office products. I must communicate with these people. If I can
not communicate effectively with customers, vendors and the general public,
I will suffer economic loss. This is commonly referred to as a network
effect and Microsoft has brilliantly exploited it. Second, because
Microsoft has kept their software file formats and interfaces secret,
others cannot functionally communicate with these products.
It is my belief, based on Microsoft's past actions, they they wish to
extend their reach beyond the PC desktop to control of networking protocols
for the Internet and act as its gate keeper. This is their
``.net'' initiative. This would have devastating consequences for
the U.S. economy and security. Microsoft has stifled innovation by its
monopolistic practices. Microsoft products are notorious for their lack of
[[Page 27251]]
security and vulnerability to attack by those who wish to harm companies or
individuals for whatever reason. The remedies I propose in this case are:
1) Microsoft products should not be bundled as a hidden cost of buying a
computer. The choice of buying a computer without any Microsoft products
must be present. The real cost of Microsoft products should be presented to
the consumer. Without this, there will not be meaningful competition in the
OS marketplace. Right now, you cannot go to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, or any
of the big computer manufacturers and buy a computer with the operating
system of your choice. You must (are literally forced to) buy a copy of
Microsoft Windows along with your computer, whether you want it or not.
Providing a round about way for the consumer to apply for a refund from
Microsoft is not a suitable remedy. The consumer MUST have the freedom to
purchase a computer with the operating system of his/her choice. Microsoft
MUST NOT be allowed to penalize a computer manufacturer for allowing their
customers choice in the marketplace.
2) Microsoft should be prevented from entering into EXCLUSIVE arrangements
with computer vendors. These arrangements have been used to reward and
punish computer vendors in the past and serve only to maintain Microsoft's
monopoly status, and hinder free and open competition in the marketplace.
3) All specifications for present and future Microsoft file formats and
Operating System Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) should be made
public. This will insure that any data or documentation I create will be
available to me in perpetuity. It will also allow others to create programs
that can meaningfully communicate with Microsoft products. Please make no
mistake in my intent for this remedy. The specifications must be made part
of the public domain. Restriction to ``commercial'' entities is
simply wrong. Open Source software initiatives should be allowed to make
use of this information.
Microsoft does not own the content that I create on my computer. Storing
that content in a proprietary format, which can only be accessed with
Microsoft products, hinders my ability to freely manage my own intellectual
property in a manner of my choosing. My concern is for the availability and
security of the data that I create today, and going forward into the
future.
4) Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be fully documented,
published in the public domain, and approved by an independent networking
protocol body. I suggest the government request the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) initially preside over such a networking
protocol body as an independent and impartial organization. Already I see
Microsoft limiting access to web sites, to those who use Internet Explorer.
This remedy would help prevent Microsoft from partitioning the Internet
into Microsoft and non-Microsoft domains.
With Regards,
Phillip H. Blanton
Senior Software Engineer
TurboPower Software Company
MTC-00022959
From: Marvin Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the settlement is a bad idea. Its does nothing to sway
Microsoft from its abusive licenses and subscription plan. I needs to
require Microsoft to port its software to other x86 operating systems in a
set of time close to the initial release. I would also like Microsoft be
require to support one open source project. Thank you for you time.
Jacob Becker
MTC-00022960
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:18pm
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,
Andy Himmelsbach
43 Drucker ln
Old Monroe, MO 63369-2309
MTC-00022961
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:17pm
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,
Lois Conway
P. O. Box 94
Palmer, AK 99645-0094
MTC-00022962
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:19pm
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,
Sharon Thompson
3415 Jolly Lane
Rapid City, SD 57703-6083
MTC-00022963
From: Evan Romer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the proposed settlement does little to punish Microsoft's past
anticompetitive behavior, does little to remedy the harm, does little to
prevent Microsoft from engaging in anticompetitive behavior in the future
(or in the present, for that matter, witness what they are doing with
streaming technology in Windows XP). Microsoft will continue to be a
stifling force in technology unless there are negative consequences for
these practices.
Sincerely,
Evan Romer
51 Chestnut St.
Windsor NY 13865
[email protected]
MTC-00022964
From: Roberta E. Hampton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
It is time to wrap up this mess that Janet Reno's bunch started at the
Justice Department. Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet
Explorer icon from the desktop, which was the main objection I believe most
of us had about the Windows program.
Competition is just that, and Netscape, which used to be a good browser,
just hasn't been able to keep pace--or hasn't tried. Also, AOL's
taking over Netscape should have
[[Page 27252]]
gotten it over the hump. Let's get this case settled!
Sincerely,
Roberta E. Hampton
605 W. 10th St.
Lamar, MO 64759-1424
MTC-00022965
From: Lyman Nicoll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Quit harrasing Microsoft.
MTC-00022966
From: David Dickerson
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ Antitrust Division:
I do not believe that the current proposal adequately addresses Microsoft's
past misconduct (e.g., crushing Netscape Corporation's share of the Web
browser market), nor does it, in any way, prevent future monopolistic
behavior by Microsoft--behavior which is blatantly occurring now.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David M. Dickerson
Senior Technical Writer
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS, INC.
616 Marriott Drive
Nashville, Tennessee 37214
UNITED STATES
Phone: +1-615-231-6260, Extension 6491
Fax: +1-615-231-6144
E-Mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.peregrine.com/
``In a world of absurdity, we must invent reason; we must must create
beauty out of nothingness.''--ELIE WIESEL
MTC-00022967
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:19pm
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,
John Wusinich
133 Longford Road
West Chester, PA 19380
MTC-00022970
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:21pm
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,
Elmer J Reed
3711-61st ST
Lubbock, TX 79413-5305
MTC-00022971
From: Steve Loughran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please find attached my comments on the attached settlements. Overall, I
think it will be at stopping anti-competitive behavior at Microsoft as the
1945 Yalta Conference was at bringing democracy to Eastern Europe, but !
also have some specific issues worth bringing up.
-Steve
Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment with Microsoft Steve Loughran,
[email protected]
As a software engineer with many years experience writing Windows programs,
I read the findings of the anti-trust investigation into Microsoft with
some interest. It was fascinating and saddening to see how products I had
worked with: Borland OWL, QuickTime, Intel's NSP effort, Netscape were all
destroyed by Microsoft in order to protect what is clearly a monopoly in
both desktop operating systems and application. Given that Microsoft were
found to have been maintaining an illegal operating systems monopoly, I
would have expected a radical attempt to correct this problem, on a par
with the EU-IBM settlement of the mid-eighties.
I was therefore highly disappointed when the final judgement appeared, as
it:
? does nothing to remedy the damage already done
? does nothing to prevent a recurrence
I believe the fact that MS are amenable to this settlement shows that they
recognize both these facts, and that by rushing to reach such an
unsatisfactory agreement, the DoJ will only be wasting another opportunity
to increase competition and innovation in the software industry.
Most pertinently, the settlement does not make it easy for alternative
operating system vendors to integrate with Microsoft applications, products
and protocols, as the scope of what can be disclosed, and the security and
business case get-out clauses open to Microsoft, will prevent enough
information to do so from ever becoming available.
I would suggest that this settlement is discarded and a serious attempt is
made to come up with a solution which actually addresses the fundamental
problem, rather than nibbles at the edges. That said, I would also like to
take issue with many of the points in the settlement on a case by case
basis.
III. D and III. E : Disclosure of Information On the subject of Microsoft
Middleware, I would like to state some examples of where the APIs are not
documented in an open manner. They may be available under non- disclosure
agreements, but that does not benefit me.
1. How to write a new subsystem under Windows NT; a peer of the Win32 and
OS/2 subsystems. This would enable applications written for a different
API, such as Unix, to run unmodified on Windows--one could even
implement a native Java runtime instead of going through Windows. Microsoft
have never documented how to write a new subsystem.
2. How to create new Windows XP themes.
Windows XP has a reskinnable user interface, like the Macintosh does, but
MS have not documented how to create new themes, so that developers such as
myself cannot make or sell them, Microsoft do sell themes as added value
extras, clearly demonstrating how withholding of information continues to
provide direct financial benefit. There are rumors that only digitally
signed themes can be loaded by the OS, in which case Microsoft will have to
remove that feature from the platform or provide a free signing service,
otherwise the theme creation information would still not permit competition
in the theme product category.
3. What the MSSCI source control interface to Visual Studio is. This is the
interface which source code management providers need to implement to
integrate their products with Microsoft's development tools; it is
available under NDA only, so cannot be supported by open source products.
This effectively forces Windows developers to use Microsoft approved source
code management tools, which ties them to a windows platform.
4. How to integrate applications with Internet Explorer to the level that
the MS Office suite does: when this is installed it adds buttons to the
toolbar which indicate that somehow IE is looking at the creating
application of every page and determining if it was written by an
application in the office family. Third party applications need to be
afforded equal rights.
5. COM+. The entire network protocol.
6. The Microsoft Office file format.
I suspect that the ``security'' clause (J. 1) will be used to
restrict access to items (1), (2), (5), and would therefore wish for the
blanket option to deny requests to be severely curtailed. The TC committee
should have the right to see the documentation of the API and determine if
that really is the case, and the right to force OS changes to nullify the
[[Page 27253]]
security concerns in the interests of interoperability.
I fear that item (3) will be denied on the basis that it is an in-
application API, not a middleware product which talks directly to the OS.
The same would hold for any API used inside the office products. However
the dominant market share of MS in these segments, and their track record
in anti-competitive behavior, should require this kind of ``extension
API'' to be documented.
This leads me to the conclusion that any ``extension API'' For
any Microsoft application, which is made available for aftermarket or add-
on products must be made available for developer scrutiny and use, as much
as for OS APIs. Effectively the definition of a Microsoft Middleware
product (ref. VIJ and VI.K) should include the Microsoft Office and
Microsoft Visual Studio platforms.
File formats, such as MS office, are not disclosed in a open manner.
Although MSDN does document parts of the format, it explicitly denies
readers the rights to use that information to write competing applications
or use it on a platform other than Windows. Both of these restrictions
restrict competition.
The second of the disclosure clauses (J.2) permits Microsoft to deny
information to any person they believe does not have a reasonable business
need or fails to meet reasonable, objective standards concerning the
authenticity or viability of the business. This will deny access to
information to home and open source developers--despite the history of
innovation which such people have brought to software. I propose that such
decisions as to suitability of the recipient should be left to the
technical committee, and that all information should be released without
fees or under non-disclosure requirements. I would also propose that some
fight of appeal should be available if, for any reason, and information
request is denied.
B. Appointment of a Technical Committee
I am concerned that the TC membership requirements: ``you may not work
for a competitor to Microsoft for two years'' will unduly hamper who
is willing to join the committee. Microsoft view everyone in the computing
industry as a competitor for the money of consumers; so that clause denies
so many career opportunities that you must be a retired developer to
consider the post. Microsoft's own employees are not subject to such rehire
restrictions, so why should the technical committee members. I would
therefore propose that the TC membership restrictions exactly match those
which Microsoft apply to their own employees.
Definitions
I am particularly concerned that the definitions are so tightly defined
that they can be avoided with ease. For example, the Microsoft. NET runtime
is not defined as middleware, even though the Microsoft Java VM is. This
makes it possible for Microsoft to provide undocumented APIs between .NET
and the OS, and between the .NET runtime and Microsoft applications.
Middleware should be defined as ``any framework above the basic OS
which can be used to write applications or components of
applications''; that is the general definition as used in the computer
industry.
MTC-00022972
From: Glik, Michael
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 5:25pm
Subject: My Comment on the settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft
I think that the proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft does not
have an intentions of either:
1.Punish offender (Microsoft) adequately for the crime
2.Prevent the repetition of the offence, such as using operating system
monopoly to get unfair advantage against competition for the other related
products such as browsers (Netscape), office (Word-Perfect), databases
(FoxPro), disk drivers (Stalker) etc.
The only measure that would do both of the above would be to award monetary
damages to the companies (if they exist) or investors (at the time the
companies were dissolved).
In other words, if Microsoft (and other legal monopolies) would know that
breaking the anti-monopolistic law would not benefit the company
(Microsoft) or its investors, they would not break the law. So if Microsoft
is forced to pay the amount of money ``reasonably assumed'' to
get by Netscape, Opera, etc. to those companies or their investors, that
can accomplish both objectives above.
Michael Glik
off. (781) 993-8611
h. (617) 630-2877
MTC-00022973
From: mark hendricks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may Concern,
We have found the demise of competition in the browser market to cause us
much more work in maintaining and developing web sites. As the Internet
Explorer browser monopolized the market it became less and less sensitive
to standards, to the point that it just runs roughshod over some of those
standards most relied on.
For instance, much of our development depends on the Java standard.
Microsoft no longer feels the need to support this standard. They instead
require their proprietary ActiveX technology to support Java applications.
ActiveX is considered a security risk in the real world. Therefore many
institutional firewalls do not allow ActiveX, making all our Java
applications non accessable to much of our public.
Everything we have done with QuickTime (a firewall friendly technology) has
the same issues. These are two of many great standards (developed by
Microsoft's former competitors) that people came to depend on. If Microsoft
still had competition in the browser market they would not be trampling
these standards to promote proprietary technology, they would be competing
to make people's lives easier, as they did when there was still competition
in the browser market.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mark Hendricks
Project Leader
Public Web Site
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
101 Market St.
San Francisco CA 94105
415.974.3236
MTC-00022974
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed DOJ settlement is completely inadequate, and does not
come close to stopping Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly
position. Please, please reconsider before allowing this current settlement
to pass. The proposed modifications made by the states do improve upon the
DOJ settlement, but should perhaps be even stronger in the proposed
limitations.
I believe that the only way to truly allow competition to Microsoft is to
have Microsoft make public the specifications that their software uses to
communicate with their operating systems and other applications. Note that
this is not asking for the source code for Microsoft software, but rather
the information necessary to allow other software to interact with
Microsoft's software. Examples of this would be the details of the file
formats used in saving Microsoft Word .doc files so that other software,
such as StarOffice, could be used to read and write .doc files; network
server communications used between the client desktop OS (like Windows XP)
and the servers--this would allow programs such as Samba to cleanly
interact with Windows clients and other Microsoft servers; specifications
used to allow applications like Microsoft Office to interact with the
Windows XP operating system--this would allow programs like WINE to be
used as an alternative to Windows XP and allow Windows applications to run
under other operating systems such as Linux.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
-Dj
Dj Merrill
[email protected] Dartmouth College,
Hanover, NH 03755
Thayer School of Engineering
Sr. Unix Systems Administrator
8000 Cummings Hall
MTC-00022975
From: Angela Teater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a concerned consumer, it alarms me that the Department of Justice is not
taking a stronger stance on the illegal practices of Microsoft. I ask you
to use the proposed alternate settlement created by the nine states which
did not support the Department of Justice's Proposed Final Judgment in
place of that Proposed Final Judgment. Thank you for taking the time to
read the request of a citizen.
Angela Teater
MTC-00022976
From: Bill Fass
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27254]]
Date: 1/24/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Can we just get this case settled and get on with the business of recovery?
We who sit on the sidelines and ponder what these various suits are all
about are getting very impatient with the ongoing litigation. As a customer
of Microsoft I feel that they have done a great job in educating all the
ordinary citizens who are not necessarily computer proficient and bringing
them into the world of computer technology. This case and all the others
have cost both sides considerable time and money that could have been used
in a more productive manner. Can't you see that this is slowing the economy
and pushing the recovery further in the future.
As President Bush put it ``Lets Roll.'' Signed--Bill Fass
Sr. Roseville, CA.
MTC-00022977
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:32pm
Subject: microsoft judgement
Please lay off microsoft.
MTC-00022978
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:30pm
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,
Billy Anderson
17378 E. Greenleaf Lane
Conroe, TX 77306-8211
MTC-00022979
From: rhemoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a former Netscape subscriber and user I can tell you it wasn't the
Microsoft Icon being on my computer that got me to switch, it was the
ripoff cost of upgrading my Netscape to the latest versions. After
switching I discoved how much better MS is than Netscape. So, now you are
giving Netscape a subsudy by allowing them to sue Microsoft. This is unfair
and wrong. It's nothing more than balckmail to Microsoft. What is the
purpose, are you trying to destroy yet another company and leave in its
wake another MOTHER BELL debaule????????
MTC-00022980
From: Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since punishing Microsoft is out of the question or maybe even unpatriotic,
why not just recommend dropping the whole mess? Maybe even giving Mr. Gates
a billion or so as a bonus for his fine work would be appropriate.
Taxpayers will cheer. God bless the United States of Redmond. The rest of
the world watches in awe as a real democracy operates.
Sincerely,
Don L. Wiggers
911 NE 58th St
Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33334
MTC-00022981
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:30pm
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,
John Bush
83 No. Concord St.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
MTC-00022982
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:30pm
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,
Elaine Lee
15 Hallenan Ave
Lawrence, MA 01841
MTC-00022983
From: Ned Schall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
This settlement should be settled so that the company can get back to
business of making computers for the work place better and better. The
companies need to spend their energies working for the good of people and
not spending time in the courts.
Sincerely,
Mary
MTC-00022984
From: Jim Crumley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing to show my opposition for the proposed Microsoft anti-trust
settlement. The proposed settlement does little to punish Microsoft for its
misdeeds and it would probably make it easier for Microsoft to abuse its
operating system monopoly in the future. The settlement is so full of holes
that actually dropping the charges against Microsoft would probably be a
tougher punishment than what has been proposed.
Personally, I believe that the most approprate punishement for Microsoft
would be breakup, but failing that remedies with more teeth than this
proposal are definitely required. At the very least Microsoft should be
forced to open up and document all of their APIs early in the development
process. Microsoft should also be constrained from further integration of
features into the operating system.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jim Crumley
1450 Grotto St. N.
St. Paul, MN 55117
Jim Crumley
[email protected]
Work: 612 624-6804 or -0378
MTC-00022985
From: RCB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:35pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
BlankJanuary 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
[email protected]
Dear madam:
I understand that the Association of Concerned Taxpayers (www.aoctp.org) is
reporting that negotiations over the Microsoft
[[Page 27255]]
antitrust suit are at a critical pass, and that the Dept. of Justice is
asking for public comment. 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,'' states the AOCTP, ``not only
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.'' This economically-draining
witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
We wish to let the Department of Justice know how we feel about the
Microsoft Settlement: We are satisfied Microsoft customers and love their
products. We benefit from their creativity. Instead of going after the
terrorists about to attack our nation, Clinton went against an honest
American. We want to see this Clinton-era case finally closed.
It is high time that we correct these scams, adjust our priorities, and
apply some common sense. Our government and our system of laws ought to
protect the welfare of the citizens and not the welfare of ``ecial
interests'' that are filling their pockets with taxpayers''
money.
Respectfully yours,
Rosa C. Bengochea
Accountant-Realtor
Owner and Moderator of
FOR FREEDOM & JUSTICE GROUP
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForFreedomandJustice
[email protected]
MTC-00022986
From: Kathleen Donohue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement contains misleading and overly narrow definitions and
provisions.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A Donohue
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
MTC-00022987
From: Phil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am firmly opposed to the proposed settlement as it currently stands.
Should a bank robber be allowed to keep the money if he promises not to rob
any more banks? I think not. Should Microsoft be allowed to keep their
illegal gotten gains if they promise not to do it any more? I think not. I
do not see anything in the proposal that addresses this. Not having
anything in the proposal to address this seems to send a message to the
public that crime pays.
You could make them pay a fine of three or four billion dollars and put it
in the telecommunication fund that is wiring up all of the public schools
and libraries. This would reduce/eliminate the monthly charge that all
people are now paying on their phone bill. Microsoft should be forced to
open up their APIs and/or be made to make their applications import/export
files using open standards as defined by W3C, IETF, etc. For example:
Microsoft Word should be made to export and import files using W3C defined
HTML and also standard ASCII. Microsoft Powerpoint should be made to export
and import from PDF and Postscript.
Opening up the file formats will enhance the overall business community by
allowing seamless interaction among everybody. This will greatly benefit
the public. Regarding Section III J 1: Please do not allow Microsoft to be
the one to judge if an API is security related, otherwise they will use
this to unfair advantage ``in the name of security''. Nobody said
creating an equitable settlement would be easy, however the stakes here are
enormous and the outcome will impact the public for decades to come.
If you do decide to come up with additions to the settlement and come to a
point where you cannot decide between a lenient or harsh penalty I would
suggest that you favor the harsh penalty because you can bet that Microsoft
will be paying top dollar to their lawyers to find ways around that
penalty.
Sincerely,
Phillip Bunch
Maryland Heights, Mo.
MTC-00022988
From: Jim May
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
As a concerned citizen, I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment in
the U.S. vs. Microsoft case before you. The proposed settlement fails to
meet the standards set forth in the Appelate Court's decision, and it seems
like it would be harmful both to the public and to the rest of the high
tech industry. Every court has ruled that Microsoft abused its power and
ran afoul of anti-trust laws, yet this judgment would allow them to retain
almost all of the profits from this illegal activity. Is that really just?
I don't know if anything can be done about it, but there are no provisions
in this judgment that would assure us that Microsoft will cease its
bullying anti-competitive practices. Therefore, my humble opinion is that
you should throw out this proposed final judgment.
Respectfully,
James B. May
365 Meetinghouse Lane
Lancaster, PA 17601
717-299-4487
MTC-00022989
From: alex(a)linker.com
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to express my displeasure with the terms of the settlement as
proposed. Whereas the provisions of the settlement provide some measure of
value to citizens, I feel the core problem has not been addressed.
Microsoft's practices continue unabated. In fact, it seems they will now
have legal cover to continue many of the most egregious ones.
Even ignoring the preventative intent of the original lawsuit, the penalty
aspect for past excesses seems merely a token--in many ways it seems
Microsoft will be in an even stronger position by extending its reach into
academia while supplying outdated hardware at minimal cost to itself. An
informative line-by-line dissection of the settlement can be found at the
following link: http://www.os2hq.com/archives/arch46.htm. Even if only half
accurate, the points raised should be addressed.
--Alex Klafter, a concerned citizen
MTC-00022990
From: Arthur Abraham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I have been a computer software professional for over thirty years. Over
the last ten years I have watched Microsoft exert a strangle hold on the
computer software field. Because of Microsoft's monopoly hold on the market
I am forced to purchase tools which are exorbitantly priced, and work on an
operating system (Windows) which is largely undocumented, insecure,
capricious, and un-repairable.
The proposed settlement is very inadequate. It is a license to Microsoft to
continue in the future as it has in the past. I am pleading with you reject
the settlement, and to craft an effective remedy to these problems.
Thank you,
Arthur Abraham
MTC-00022991
From: Sebastian Becerra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not like the proposed settlement.
Sebastian Becerra
Tucker, Georgia
MTC-00022992
From: N. C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
How many federal judges found Microsoft guilty of monopoly? Is the DOJ
really going to let them off--without even making M$ pay legal fees?
To hell with conduct remedies, why not a light slap on their wrists and be
done with it? Oh, and then have the taxpayers pony up the bill for this
mockery of justice. I hope you guys got your g-strings stuffed with a few
extra bills, at least.
Absolutely disgustedly yours,
N. C.
MTC-00022993
From: Lyle P. jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
[[Page 27256]]
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. While I have been
opposed to this lawsuit from its inception, I believe settling the case now
is in everyone's best interests.
The settlement agreement provides for a variety of concessions on
Microsoft's part. They have agreed to increase server interoperability.
They have also agreed to make a great deal of changes in the way they
handle their relationships with software developers. Once the settlement
agreement is finalized, Microsoft will not retaliate against software or
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes with
Windows. Nothing more should be expected or required of Microsoft beyond
the scope of the current settlement agreement.
I urge your continued support of resolving this case. Thank you for your
efforts in this regard.
Sincerely,
Lyle P. Jones
PO Box 281/451 Coul Ave.
Buckley, WA 98321
[email protected]
phone 360-829-9293
MTC-00022994
From: Dave Newman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having been a professional software developer since 1987 and having
observed numerous, predatory actions by Microsoft, I feel the proposed
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is absolutely NOT in the best
interest of consumers, independent developers, or free market competition.
This proposed settlement should be rejected.
Sincerely,
David Newman
[email protected]
MTC-00022995
From: chet(u)chap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Suits
Dear Sir,
I am neither a holder of Microsoft stock, nor of AOL stock and have never
been. My interest in this issue is to resolve these interminable lawsuits
by companies and others against Microsoft. I view these suits as nothing
more than a nuisance to a the effort of a very viable and productive
company (Microsoft) to produce products that have been of tremendous
benefit to the American public. I hope that in your findings that you will
put an end to these lawsuits. I am a very satisfied user of Microsoft
products. It is through these products that the American public has become
very productive, without having to learn a multitude of languages for
various products of the same type. If this be a monopoly, so be it. The U.
S. government is a monopoly also, but I happen to like it the way it is.
And the same is true for the way Microsoft is pursuing its business.
All we have here with these lawsuits is a effort by some politicians
(particularly those in the San Jose Silicon Valley and an ambitious
Attorney General of the State of California), a group of disgruntled
companies (AOL, Oracle, Apple), and some greedy trial lawyers to try to
muscle in on and impede the success of Microsoft. Please dismiss these
lawsuits in a timely manner.
By the way, this whole thing was started by the prior Presidential
administration as a payback for the support given to that administration by
the various companies in the Silicon Valley. At least that is the opinion
of myself and many others to whom I have spoken.
Chester Chapman
P. O. Box 32307
Tucson, AZ 85751
email: [email protected]
CC:Chet Chapman
MTC-00022996
From: Eric Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I am writing to let my feelings on the proposed Microsoft settlement be
known, a right provided by the the Tunney Act. It is my belief that
allowing Microsoft to continue doing business as a single entity does not
sufficiently remedy the circumstances that allowed the company to become a
monopoly power in the first place, and subsequently abuse that power. My
views are in line with those expressed by Robert Litan and Roger Noll
(American Antitrust Institute Advisory Board members) and economist William
Nordhaus. I refer you to their Tunney Act comments by way of the following
URL:
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/162.cfm
Please accept my thanks for considering my opinion in this matter.
Eric Murray
independent Computer Systems Consultant
MTC-00022997
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am requesting that the Department of Justice settle the Microsoft case
under the terms of the original antitrust case. As a public school educator
employed in a low income area, it would be a windfall for the
underprivledged children in the district to have the use of computers and
software. These are children that will NEVER have the opportunity again. I
beg you to open the door to these deserving children. Without the funds to
further their education, a computer background would at least give them
skills that can be used in obtaining employment.
The government has spent enough of our tax money trying to cripple an
American business. Enough is enough.
Thank you for listening.
Priscilla Meyer
MTC-00022998
From: Kevin Cosgrove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
The Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) against Microsoft is so weak and vague as
to make a mockery of the justice process. How is this fair or even legal?
Can the justice system turn a blind eye to Microsoft's continuation of
illegal practices documented in the Findings of Fact even during the
penalty phase of the ongoing trial?
I urge you with all the heart I can muster to take all legal steps
available to level the competitive playing field in the software arena and
allow this area of our economy to realize unfettered innovation amongst a
broad range of savvy technologists.
My perspective is that of:
--Electrical Engineer, I design integrated circuits (chips).
--Software Engineer, I create software.
--Educator, I teach electronics.
--Musician, I use music software.
--US Citizen, I expect that the justice system should do its job in
upholding the law.
Thanks for your attention.
Kevin Cosgrove, Engineer, Portland, OR
MTC-00022999
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:38pm
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,
Elsie Hendricks
2308-B North Grand Ave.
Roswell, NM 88201-6424
MTC-00023000
From: Art Gittleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
Art Gittleman
1902 Park St
Huntington Beach CA 92648
Art Gittleman
Professor, Computer Science
Calif State Univ Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840-8302
(562)985-1530
[email protected]
MTC-00023002
From: Christopher Sean Morrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27257]]
To Whom it May Concern:
Per the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (Tunney Act),
I am commenting on the revised proposed Final Judgment to resolve the
United States v. Microsoft civil antitrust case. I find the proposed
settlement to be inadequate; the settlement does not include any terms to
enforce restitution or reprisal for the damages Microsoft incurred.
Microsoft was found liable for damages caused by it's actions. The proposed
settlement, however, does not go to any significant length to make
provisions to any party, individual, or company that incurred a loss
through Microsoft's actions. The proposed settlement only takes steps to
limit damages that may be incurred in the future.
Given the substantial nature of the damages that were incurred and the
period of time over which Microsoft has been able to use it's monopoly for
monetary benefit, I believe that direct monetary penalties should be
included in the proposed settlement.
It is one thing to try and prohibit Microsoft's future actions and minimize
their ability to leverage their position in industry as a monopoly. As the
proposed settlement details, hopefully said restrictions will encourage
competition in the marketplace and restrict Microsoft's monopoly. Without
including settlement terms, however, that include retribution to those
impacted by Microsoft's actions, Microsoft is allowed to essentially
``get away with'' everything that they did. To not be punished
for improper behavior is to not serve proper justice. Microsoft was allowed
to make billions of dollars through their monopoly. Other companies and
individuals were directly penalized and damaged. The industry as a whole
has also been impacted. The proposed settlement is inadequate because it is
looking only to limit future activity. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Sincerely,
Christopher Sean Morrison
Senior Analyst
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Quantum Research International, Inc.
[ the opinions and ideas included may not necessarily represent the
opinions and ideas of my employer or affiliates ]
MTC-00023005
From: Michael Wojcik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Section J.1.a of the Proposed Settlement, allowing Microsoft to avoid
disclosing APIs and other technical information on various grounds, in
effect gives Microsoft carte blanche to conceal technical information about
its products on the pretext of protecting security or DRM (digital rights
management) mechanisms. It is generally acknowledged that Microsoft has
often used and continues to use non-disclosure of technical data about its
products (``hidden APIs'') to gain unfair competitive advantage,
particularly in interactions between its operating systems and applications
divisions. If enacted the settlement as written has no power to prevent or
discourage Microsoft from continuing to do so, and so utterly fails to
achieve the end it and the legal action it terminates ostensibly sought.
As a practitioner in the field where Microsoft is held to possess illegal
monopolistic power, and as a consumer adversely affected by Microsoft's
monopolistic practices (which have a chilling effect on the development of
superior products), I protest the inclusion of this clause in the proposed
settlement.
Michael Wojcik
Principal Software Systems Developer, Micro Focus
[email protected]
MTC-00023014
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:40pm
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,
Geoff Miller
346 Burns Dr.
Westerville, OH 43082
MTC-00023018
From: Cathy Cheung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
Redwood City, CA 94065
Student
MTC-00023020
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:41pm
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,
George Foster
55 Rosedown Blvd
DeBary, FL 32713-4118
MTC-00023024
From: Richard Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not like the proposed settlement.
Particularly, I don't like how loose the definition of ``API'' is
(definition A).
Also, as far as I can tell, there is no requirement that Microsoft
discloses known limitations, bugs, or security issues in the API's (once
they are discovered). I would like to see that included because software
developers'' products are often directly affected by bugs in
Microsoft's products. Microsoft knows about the bugs/limitations and can
develop software products around the problem, but third party developers
are sometimes left to suffer bad PR because of bugs that are not their
fault. One may argue that Microsoft could purposely introduce undocumented
bugs and limitations in order to limit functionality of third party and
competing software products.
Section III.J.1. should be phrased much more carefully. I believe there are
too many obscurities that would allow Microsoft to not document many
important API's.
In general, I agree with the arguments made in the following essay:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Richard Hansen
MTC-00023026
From: Ernie Fisch
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/24/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It does nothing to
hamper their monopolisitic practices.
Ernie Fisch [[email protected]]
MTC-00023027
From: Rick Nall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is a bad idea.
Richard T. Nall
1545 Gulf Shores Pkwy #205
Gulf Shores, AL 36542
Never under-estimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
hurtling down the highway.
A. S. Tanenbaum
MTC-00023028
From: Victor E. Oekerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:50pm
Subject: microsoft vs AOL
To Whom it may Concern:
I am a small computer user and am happy with my Microsoft equipment/
programs and
[[Page 27258]]
do not wish to be forced to buy AOL products just to stay in business.
Thanks for your assistance.
Yours truly,
Victor E. Oekerman
P.O. Box 100
Oceanside, OR 97134-0100
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023029
From: brenna burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
please don't let microsoft get its big greedy way! thanks, Brenna Burns
MTC-00023030
From: Bruce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly oppose the Microsoft settlement.
MTC-00023031
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madame,
I cannot believe that this court and the nine states that don't want to
accept Microsoft's Settlement offer are willing to send this very fragile
economy into the sewer. As msft goes so goes the market, as we investors
all know. This is simply a case of going for them because they have deep
pockets and the consumer is very sick of this activity by the courts. A
blind person can see that those companies who were competitors of microsoft
were also the same companies that politically swayed the DOJ case against
them. The states who are not accepting the settlement offer are mostly the
states that the aforementioned companies have a large facility(ies) in. Is
this right to litigate rather than compete? I guess as long as the courts
rule in favor of them why should they compete. In fact, AOL just announced
that they are going to sue msft because of how msft treated the company
thet AOL later purchased for $10 billion because of the browsers. The
timing for this lawsuit is certainly not a coincidence to millions of
people. This country is way past being sue happy and we can thank the trial
lawyers for that. This whole lawsuit is shameful for this country and our
economy. Again I say, it's only a matter of deep pockets and we all know
it.
Regards,
Mr. and Mrs. Chris E. Messmer
Seattle, WA
MTC-00023032
From: susan farrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Honorable Justice Hesse,
I am dismayed at the restraint with which the Department of Justice
proposes to address the illegal monopolistic practices of Microsoft.
Microsoft has for many years acted with contempt for the laws, ethics,
common practices, and spirit of fair competition in the computer software
and hardware industries. Even now they are poised to take over broadband,
media content, e-commerce, and several smaller but crucial industries. They
have put other companies out of business in the most ruthless manner,
stifling good designs, better products, and even open discussion.
Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its
applications to keep them from running on competing operating systems. This
problem has seriously affected my work for years, because I use those
competing operating systems (MacOS and Unix). Also, the proposed remedies,
although seriously flawed in my view, since they do not address many
serious issues, do not come with enforcement mechanisms likely to work.
In the past they have treated legal remedies to their anti-competitive
practices with contempt by ignoring them. The alarming and potentially
national-security-compromising state of Internet insecurity today is their
fault, since they continue to ship insecure products while in fact forcing
companies and .gov agencies to use them. The state of computing monoculture
should be of concern to everyone. When one virus can wipe out billions of
dollars in a week, it's time to ask ``why are we so
vulnerable?''. Smart organizations, including the armed forces of
Australia have already walked away from Microsoft solutions because of
their inability to be secured or to be freed from the surveillance
mechanisms Microsoft builds in for reasons of its own.
Please come to the rescue of the little companies, the hardware
manufacturers, the industries that depend on computing to do business, and
the People of the US (indeed of the world), and protect us in a meaningful
way from Microsoft's unfair and freedom-stifling business practices. The
company is evil and it could destroy what's left of our economy if left
unchecked and unpunished. They are almost a sovereign power now, because of
their economic power and ability to punish companies who don't comply.
Please take them as seriously as they take themselves.
They need to open their APIs. They need to be held accountable for their
lack of security in their email and office products. They need to be made
interoperable on competing OSs. They need to be prevented from forcing
hardware manufacturers to include their products but not competitor's. They
need to be prevented from owning the sole means of online transaction
management (.Net). And they need to be prevented from dumping free
technology that puts other businesses out of business, as they did with
Netscape by giving away a browser for free until Netscape foundered. As
they tried to do by giving free technology to schools as part of the
settlement. Thank you for taking the time to consider real sanctions with
real enforcement mechanisms against this long-time bad actor in our
economy. Please act quickly before even more companies are forced out of
business.
Sincerely,
Susan Farrell
Portland Oregon
User Experience Specialist
MTC-00023033
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:50pm
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,
Jan/Ken Miller
18 E. 28th St.
Hutchinson, KS 67502
MTC-00023034
From: Scott Stadelhofer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end the case against Microsoft as soon as possible. It is hurting
the US economy and all of the shareholders in all of the companies
involved.
Scott R. Stadelhofer
[email protected]
703-641-9177
MTC-00023035
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the Proposed Final
Judgement against Microsoft Corp. It does not go nearly far enough to open
the market to competition both in the operating systems market and the
software applications market; furthermore it allows Microsoft to continue a
great many anti-competitive practices.
Ideally, operating systems would be like household electrical outlets
(commonplace and 100% compatible), and applications would be like vacuum
cleaners and TVs (commodities built atop a common, standard
infrastructure). Until that blissful state of affairs exists, the only way
to ensure fairness in the software industry is to compel software makers,
and particularly operating- system vendors, to clearly document all APIs,
and to prevent vendors from offering those APIs preferentially to
particular developers, including themselves. The Proposed Final
[[Page 27259]]
Judgement takes tiny baby steps in this direction, when what is required is
several giant leaps.
Thank you,
Joseph A. Knapka,
Software Developer
[email protected]
MTC-00023036
From: Sanjay Chandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
Thanks,
Sanjay Chandra Ph (972) 296-9599
x202 [Mailto:[email protected]]
Vice-President Fax (972) 590-9291
American Leather [http://www.AmericanLeather.com]
AMERICANLEATHERTM
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am contacting you to ask that you back the settlement reached in the
Microsoft antitrust case. This case simply has continued for too long, and
an enlightened settlement now exists that should bring this case to a
close. The settlement that is currently being made available to both sides
will bring improvement and more openness to the IT industry. The settlement
allows computer makers to place non-Microsoft systems on their machines
unencumbered by contractual restrictions. The settlement also will permit
the easy placement of non-Microsoft software on Microsoft operating
systems. Clearly this settlement presents a reasonable result for all
sides. Pursuit of further litigation in the federal case is, in my opinion,
unwarranted. I again respectfully ask that you back the current settlement.
Sincerely,
Sanjay Chandra
Vice President
American Leather, LP
cc: Representative Martin Frost
3700 Eagle Place Drive Suite 100 Dallas Texas 75236
Phone 800-456-9599
Fax 972-296-8859
MTC-00023037
From: Adam Quddus Salter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed mesures are not harse enough to prevent
Microsoft from continuing their monopolistic practices. The original
decision to split Microsoft into several smaller companies along specific
``offerings'' or ``lines of business'' was, in my
humble opion, a good start.
Thank you,
Adam Q Salter
MTC-00023038
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:54pm
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,
Frank Wymore
545 Shoreview Park Road
St. Paul, MN 55126-7018
MTC-00023039
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect you
for the job you are doing during these trying times. I also find you to be
very articulate and a pleasure to listen to on the tv. Now to the matter of
Microsoft. Settle it, end it. Enough is enough. This is America and very
few of us would expend money and not expect to get rewarded for it.
There are alot of laws that have changed over our existance and by tomorrow
they will change some more. Microsoft is innovative and forceful-thats what
makes America what it is. Microsoft employs alot of people and is extremely
beneficial to charities. Placing their units in underpriviledged schools is
a benefit to America and its children. Yes it creates advertising, but come
on, who in America or elsewhere doesnt know Microsoft already-thats good
govt. The good outweighs the bad-the majority is served. All
``good'' attorneys tell their clients to settle immediately and
get on with their lives-please let America get on with their lives
regarding this matter-plus if they mess up again-hit them again-simple.
MOVE ON.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Debra Collard
First City Realty Inc.
Southwalk Ltd Inc.
Parkview Dev. Inc.
CBC Investment Inc.
151 Creekside Drive
St. Augustine, Fla. 32086
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023040
From: Miles Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I am saddened to hear that the Department of Justice and Microsoft have
reached a tentative settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
lawsuit. Ibelieve that the proposed settlement does a very poor job and
that it is critical that aforementioned settlement be reevaluated and
abandoned. To allow a company who has repeatedly ``strong armed''
and forced competitors out of the market (and eventually business) to pay
their debt with software coupons is outrageous. In the end it would only
expand Microsoft's market share. Where is the punishment in that? Thank you
for your time.
Sincerely,
Myles Robinson
MTC-00023042
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:56pm
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,
Martha Yeakel
315 S. Poplar
Arthur, IL 61911-1532
MTC-00023043
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:56pm
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,
[[Page 27260]]
Orman Melanson
1 Katie Lane
Raymond, NH 03077
MTC-00023044
From: Denny Denniston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:59pm
Subject: court settllement
Current proposal is fair and the competitors shuld compete in the market
place rather than the courts. c. R. Denniston, Consumer
MTC-00023045
From: Rick Faber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement not harsh enough
Microsoft is a monopoly. We have other monopolies in our societies as they
are useful in some areas. That is ok. When a monopoly uses and or abuses
its status to squash/intimidate/ or effect other persons/coorporations,
That is not ok. Clearly Microsoft falls in the latter case.
I believe the proposed settlement is too lenient, and Microsoft should be
punished more harshly for its actions.
Cheers,
Rick
Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics
2011 Agricultural and Life Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-7305
USA
Tel:(541) 737-3196 (Monday,Wednesday,Thursday)
Fax:(541) 737-0481
fax:(801) 605-4566
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023046
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end all this litigation and get back to business. Let's get
the economy started, not bog it down in the courts.
Catherine McNamara
MTC-00023047
From: John Hitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just wanted to congratulate the DOJ for doing a great job of moving America
one more step towards ``a government of the corporations, by the
corporations, for the corporations''. This settlement coupled with the
superb DMCA laws make everyone feel that their freedoms and rights are
being sold out from under them by corporate lobbyists everywhere.
John Hitt
Strategic Applications Engineer, DHPG
Sun Microsystems, Austin, TX
x64073 (Internal) 512.401.1073 (External)
MTC-00023048
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:58pm
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,
BILLIE ALLENSWORTH
2411 WINTER PARK ROAD
WINTER PARK, FL 32789-6108
MTC-00023049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:57pm
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,
Vida Cason
Rt.3,Box 2461
Coushatta, LA 71019-9582
MTC-00023050
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:58pm
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 tesky
204 Dublin CT
Blue Springs, MO 64014-4818
MTC-00023051
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 5:59pm
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,
Jess & Julie Huerta
14082 Montfort Court
San Diego, CA 92128
MTC-00023052
From: Randall J. Parr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is very, very bad.
Right up there with building cars and making chemicals that kill people.
MTC-00023053
From: drennie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I do not believe that the currently contemplated Microsoft settlement will
solve the problems caused by the long-term monopolistic behavior of
Microsoft, or prevent these problems from continuing. I was personally
adversely affected by Microsofts anti-competitive practices in
1994-1995 as I attempted to start up a small computer business based
on the OS/2 operating system. Because of punitive Microsoft contract
provisions, my hardware suppliers could not offer me basic unconfigured
systems without a financial penalty in pricing if I was not going to use
Microsoft Windows operating system. This was a telling financial
disadvantage for
[[Page 27261]]
anyone wanting to sell OS/2. Please do not fail to not only enforce a
remedy that fosters vigorous innovation and competition in the future, but
also put in place oversight with ample authority to ensure compliance into
the future.
Sincerely,
David Rennie
MTC-00023054
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:00pm
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,
Jan Bigler
1492 La Brea
Henderson, NV 89014-2587
MTC-00023055
From: Dwight Munn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to register my opposition to the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. As an Apple Computer reseller with many contacts in the
educational community (including my wife who is a teacher) I have seen
firsthand how Microsoft's insidious practices have ``persuaded''
many educational institutions to abandon competing computer platforms in
favor of Windows-based solutions, even when it could be demonstrated that
they would be better served by using a competitive solution. I feel that
the proposed remedy of donating Microsoft software and Windows-based
computers would only serve to give Microsoft an unfair advantage in one of
the few areas where it does not already enjoy a monopoly. In my opinion, a
better solution would be to simply require Microsoft to donate an
equivalent amount in cash which schools could spend as they saw fit.
I strongly urge you to reject the terms of the settlement as it currently
stands. It does not begin to address or punish the unfair behavior in which
Microsoft has engaged and would in fact reward the company for its
misdeeds.
Regards,
Dwight Munn
MTC-00023056
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
For almost 30 years I worked for Community Colleges in Washington State as
a computer instructor, Data Processing Director and at time of retirement,
Director of Information Technology for the Community Colleges of Spokane.
During those thirty years I was involved in the decision and approval
process for the purchase of thousands of PC's, Apple Computers, Unix
systems and computer software. These decisions were always based on what
products local industry was using and what was the best technology for the
application. When Microsoft products were chosen, it was due to superior
products to do the job and to implement the industry defacto standard in
order to keep technical support costs reasonable and applications
compatible. We found Microsoft an excellent supporter of education in our
state. Microsoft worked with the Washington Community College Computing
Consortium over the years to provide much needed educational discounts,
training and support to faculty, staff and indirectly students.
I do not feel the colleges, faculty or students were harmed in any
significant way from the monopoly Microsoft gained over the years in
desktop operating systems. Microsoft simply developed the best technology
and prevailed in the marketplace. However since the courts have determined
that Microsoft benefited unduly from their contracting practices, a remedy
should be sought that provides the greatest benefits to our society. A
breakup is not warranted, but changes in contracting practices with
computer vendors should be implemented.
A decision by the courts that impacts education and students throughout the
country will be far more valuable for our society than a rebate scheme to
individuals or other companies which primarily benefit attorneys. Since
product donations to schools as proposed by Microsoft is objected to by
it's competitors as giving Microsoft unfair advantage, an alternative would
be for the court to require the company to distribute, as a fine, several
billion $'s cash to schools throughout the nation to upgrade and improve
their technology. The technology to purchase would be determined by each
individual school district or college. They should be free to purchase
products such as books, supplies, software, networks, communications, Apple
Computers, Unix systems, whatever they determine are their priorities. This
approach would distribute a large amount of cash through the schools to a
wide variety of vendors, and benefit our economic recovery in the short
term.
But most importantly everyone in our country would benefit in the long term
as our schools will be better able prepare our students for competition in
the increasingly technical and complex world economy.
Finally, it is imortant to conclude this case and let Microsoft and their
competitors decide their fates in the marketplace, not in the courts.
Elton W. Chase
2416 Wedgewood Dr. SE
Olympia, WA 98501
360-705-8874
MTC-00023057
From: Patrick Boyd
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/24/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft proposed DOJ settlement
I wish this was going to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and not the
Department of Justice, which after the change in administration, should now
be called the Department of Injustice. I expect that whoever is reading
this will stop at this point in put a check mark in a column against the
proposed DOJ settlement.
The proposed DOJ settlement is an insult to everyone except mabey
shareholders of Microsoft. It isn't even a slap on the hand. Or if you
prefer, it is the perfect example of all the political and legal Justice
someone can afford.
Even as we speak Microsoft is using the Business Software Alliance, its
equivalent of the IRS/Gestapo, to put the fear of God into the public at
large. The end result will be solidifying its monopolist position in the
operating system, office productivity, web browser, ect.. Even though other
companies are participating members of the Business Software Alliance, it
is discounts for Microsoft software that are being used as the carrot for
compliance.
A good example is the following excerpt from an article in the Tennessean,
the major daily paper in Nashville, TN:
http://www.tennessean.com/business/archives/02/01/
12536028.shtml?Element--ID=12536028
``Everyone is scared and thinks they could go to prison,'' said
Wayne Adams, president of Night Technologies, a computer consultant company
in Nashville. ``We've had a tremendous number of people asking if they
need to turn themselves in.''
Microsoft's approach requiring both initial registration of Windows XP, and
reregistration when changes to hardware are made, are another perfect
example of a monopoly using its power to continue its monopoly. This has
the potential to result in a greater database of personal information than
even that of the IRS, because it will not only cover virtually every
individual and business in the United States, but the world. Databases
start small and grow as additional pieces of information are acquired and
connected with other pieces of information. It doesn't matter what
Microsoft says it won't do with the information, the fact that it will
exist will mean it ultimately will be used, or mined as the industry likes
to refer to it.
Patrick S Boyd, CLU, ChFC, CEBS
Insurance Consultant & Broker
4708 Granny White Pike
Nashville, TN 37220-1012
Tel: 615-371-8400Fax: 615-370-9288
[email protected]
MTC-00023058
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
[[Page 27262]]
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,
MARIA HUGHES
14779 S. 600 W.
WANATAH, IN 46390
MTC-00023059
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:02pm
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,
Joy Feller
816 Bonita Ave.
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-4410
MTC-00023060
From: Earl Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft deal is a BAD IDEA!
MTC-00023061
From: Thomas G. Parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With respect to the proposed settlement of antitrust action against
Microsoft:
SETTLEMENT INADEQUATE
I have followed relevant events in the media for several years, and I am
seriously disappointed in the proposed settlement. It could hardly be
weaker. It does not even begin to approach a remedy, much less a
punishment, but comes closer to being a government endorsement of
Microsoft's abusive and harmful behavior.
MY POSITION
I am not a computer professional, nor involved in any way with the
industry, but I have used home computers since acquiring a Northstar
Horizon in 1979. I have tried to keep up with the field, and I regard
myself as computer literate.
I have been personally injured by Microsoft's behavior over the years, and
the damage continues. Years ago, I was initially involved as a silent
victim in the controversy over the separability of Microsoft Internet
Explorer from the Windows operating system. Believing Microsoft's publicity
about the separability, and attempting to remove IE from my then-new Dell
Latitude LM laptop, I destroyed the usability of Windows 95 and had to
reinstall from the CD provided. Besides the cost in time and lost data, the
operating system has never worked as well since, despite several
reinstalls, following every instruction from Microsoft.
At this point, I am working to install and master Linux, despite the
notorious difficulties. These difficulties pale in comparison with the many
wasted hours and days I have been forced to spend to keep Windows
functional. If there had been realistic competition in the marketplace, I
would have a choice. I do not. The antitrust judgment recognizes this, but
the proposed remedy is no remedy at all.
INADEQUATE REMEDIES
The proposed penalties appear not to require Microsoft to desist from their
``embrace and extend'' tactic of modifying established standards
and then patenting, and/or hiding, key elements of their changes
(``improvements''!).
The proposed remedies do not appear to give me the option to demand a
reduction in the price of a new computer if it does *not* have Windows pre-
installed. Thus anything Microsoft chooses to include in its operating
system takes on the character of a forced purchase inseparable from the
purchase of hardware. This can only extend the existing monopoly. There
should be a price reduction that bears a reasonable relation to the retail
price of the operating system.
INADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT
Worst of all, the proposed enforcement mechanism of even the too-weak
settlement is meaningless. Any detection of a violation by the overseers
will not automatically trigger serious penalties, as it should. Such a
finding will just initiate another lengthy court battle about the substance
and significance of the alleged violation. Back to square one. One could
hardly imagine a mechanism closer to the classic ``Throw Br'er Rabbit
in the briar patch'' for Microsoft's purposes.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DISCREDITS COURTS AND GOVERNMENT
The proposed settlement is so extraordinarily weak that it provides fodder
for cynics. It could not favor Microsoft more, if Microsoft had written it
and paid for it--which many suspect is not far from the actuality.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Parsons
[American citizen, currently resident in New Zealand]
MTC-00023062
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:03pm
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,
Barbara Lundberg
1669 Nottage Court
Laramie, WY 82072
MTC-00023064
From: Patrick Thurmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:07pm
Subject: i think you did the right thing with MS
I am so happy that the JD did not persue the MS antitrust battle! Hurray.
The department did the right thing. Let free enterprise ring!
Patrick Thurmond
registered and active voter
Overland Park Kansas
MTC-00023065
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:07pm
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 register the following comments:regarding
the proposed Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in
Dan Kegel's analysis, incorporated here by reference (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
Further, I feel that Microsoft should NOT be allowed to release any
additional versions or updates (other than emergency patches for security
holes) to any of their software products until they comply with at least
the following:
Microsoft shall be required to provide a Reference Implementation in source
form, royalty free, and freely available to all users,
[[Page 27263]]
for all document formats created by any Microsoft Application Program.
Microsoft shall be required to provide complete documentation of all
library calls, system calls, and any other entry point in each and every
library (LIB, DLL, VXD, OBJ, or other format) shipped with any Microsoft
product. Such documentation must include a description of the functionality
provided by each entry point, the calling sequence, returned parameters,
error conditions, how various errors are handled, and any other relevant
information about each library or system call.
The above two paragraphs come much closer to the definition of an API, and
would provide the community a substantially more useful guarantee that code
can be written to:
1. Compete with any Microsoft API on a level playing field.
2. Utilize any Microsoft implementation of their API.
An example of such documentation would include the ``Man Page''
collection on any UNIX or UNIX-Like system.
In this instance, it will be necessary for the proposed Technical Committee
(TC) to audit this documentation and verify that it is, indeed, complete by
comparison to the source code from which the libraries are built.
The current settlement defines all of the restrictions so narrowly that
Microsoft will easily be able to circumnavigate them and claim that what
they have done does not violate the terms of the settlement. In fact, parts
of the proposal will actually assist Microsoft in defending their anti-
competitive practices.
Thank you,
Owen DeLong
3251 Firth Way
San Jose, California
95121
[email protected]
408-539-9559
MTC-00023066
From: James Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to tentative settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft
antitrust lawsuit. I am a student hoping to get into the computer industry.
If this proceeds, it is just a slap on the wrist for Microsoft and I
believe it will eventually lead to a smaller job market in computerized
areas.
James S Slagle
Las Vegas, NV
MTC-00023067
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:04pm
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,
Brian Lundberg
1669 Nottage Court
Laramie, WY 82072
MTC-00023068
From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ:
I disagree with your decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust case. The
remedies agreed to do not go far enough to address the problem of a
predatory monopoly with a profit margin around 40%. I agreed with Judge
Jackson's remedy, and I did not believe that the appeals court decision
totally precluded this remedy. I feel that the DOJ should have continued to
pursue this remedy until it was irrevocably forclosed. Microsoft has
crippled a company I held in high esteem:
Netscape Communications. Netscape employees were the true innovators.
Microsoft shamelessly copied them, and used monopoly revenues from their
operating system to finance the destruction of a potential competitor.
Lawyers can argue all they want, but the public knows the plain truth.
Microsoft used revenue from Windows to try to kill Netscape, and succeeded
in severely crippling them. This was illegal, because of Microsoft's
monopoly status. The fundamental intensions of Microsoft were no different
from the outrageous oil trusts which prompted the anti-trust laws. I
believe Justice is not well served by the settlement agreement.
Mark Tremblay
Annandale, Virginia
MTC-00023069
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:04pm
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,
Madison and Judy Brister
5633 Sandalwood Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
MTC-00023071
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:04pm
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,
Steven Fortman
18507 Jackson St. NE
East Bethel, MN 55011
MTC-00023072
From: Alex Goldfinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08pm
Subject: Public Comment
The trial judge in his Finding of Facts, enumerated the chronology of the
Microsoft actions and showed he understood the essence of the matter when
he stated that the control of the API's was at the heart of Microsoft's
actions.
In any settlement or court order, the matter of who owns and controls the
API's must address how that entity will not have the same motivations, as
Microsoft previously did, to use its position to demand exclusive use of
them and be absolutely prevented from doing so.
Splitting up Microsoft therefore is not a solution to the API problem, as
whichever follow-on entity owns the API's will have the same power and
incentives to use it as the present company does. You might consider that
as a penalty, Microsoft lose the API's which will be put in some form of
public domain or control, whether or not this is Open Source is less
important than that Microsoft lose control.
Alex Goldfinger
2306 Edgewood Terrace
Scotch Plains, NJ 07076
MTC-00023073
From: Paul Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27264]]
Date: 1/24/02 6:10pm
Subject: STOP
Its time to stop the effort to stop Micrsoft from doing what they do
best....
Paul [email protected]
MTC-00023074
From: Michael W. Loder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:10pm
Subject: proposed settlement
Renata Hesse:
I do not think the settlement which the Justice Department is proposing is
in the best interest of either the American public or computer users
anywhere. It certainly does not appear to meet the criteria of punishment
for an illegal act.
I am particularly troubled by the fact that Microsoft will be allowed to
continue to demand exclusive licensing agreements of computer
manufacturers, forcing them to include whichever version of the Windows
Operating System that Microsoft chooses AND prevent them from offering
other choices.
If this monopoly is to end, I believe that Microsoft must be prevented from
entering into any exclusive licensing agreement, allowing manufacturers to
sell their products with any operating system they choose-or even none at
all. Afterall, if I buy a Ford, I'm not restricted to always buying my gas
at Ford service stations, am I?
Thank you for your attention to these thoughts and your inclusion of this
letter with the public comments.
Michael W. Loder
340 Maple Blvd/Deer Lake
Orwigsburg PA 17961
MTC-00023075
From: PMGeddis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:09pm
Subject: Settlement
It's time to close this case down. Always, always, antitrust should be
viewed through the eyes of the consumer. We consumers were never prevented
from obtaining other software or browsers.
In fact, I still use Netscape as my first choice. I use Qualcomm's Eudora
for my email. I continue to use Corel's WordPerfect over MS's Word. I use
MS Windows rather than Linex. That's my choice and I'm free to do so.
Microsoft's bundling may make it more convenient initially to use their
products, but they've never prevented me from using another's. Fear of and
actual lawsuits only reduce the number of enterprising businesses to
emerge. Let go of the marketplace and let us decide the winners at the cash
registers.
P. M. Geddis
Los Angeles, CA
MTC-00023076
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08pm
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,
Charles & Gayla Threatt
5533 West 26th. St.
Odessa, TX 79763-1910
MTC-00023077
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't have a ton of time to write a detailed message concerning all of
the reasons for opposing the Microsoft settlement, all I can say is that it
is in the best interest of all American's to look closely at the impact of
this corporation on everything.
I am not advocating a solution. I am only saying that a better, more
effective solution for diminishing the monopolistic powers of Microsoft can
be found than the one currently on the table.
Sincerely,
Chris Pelsor
chris pelsor
keep up on my misadventures in norway!
http://www.snogboggin.com
[email protected]
MTC-00023078
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:08pm
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,
Sherman Smith
1242 Cobblestone Ln
Dandridge, TN 37725
MTC-00023079
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:09pm
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,
B. JUNE FRITSCHMANN
2211 PACIFIC BEACH DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109-5626
MTC-00023081
From: Richard Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Unfair!
Dear sirs;
I write to strongly oppose the proposed settlement for Microsoft. I am a
strong supporter of the Bush Administration and understand the desire to go
easy on technology companies in light of the current economic climate.
However, Microsoft has committed criminal acts and should be suitably
punished.
The proposed value of this settlement is NO WHERE NEAR $800 million to the
American people. In fact, it is nothing more than a Microsoft marketing
ploy to get more PCs into schools running the Windows OS and Windows
applications. It does punish them, it HELPS them. Please, reject this
proposed settlement without hesitation.
You want to discipline Microsoft? Force them to pay the companies they hurt
(Netscape, Apple, etc.) or force them to buy $800 million worth of
Macintosh computers to donate to schools, with Netscape software loaded on
them! Surely we can all see that Microsoft benefits from this. Right?
Thank you for your time,
Richard Barrett
[email protected]
MTC-00023082
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27265]]
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,
Philo Brence
5409 West Wilshire Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85035-1816
MTC-00023083
From: Mark Spain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
It is my opinion that settlement of this case is indeed in the best
interest of the economy as a whole. Please consider settlement as a
satisfactory resolution and move forward. Thanks for listening!
MTC-00023084
From: James G .
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US DOJ
Why I think Microsoft is ``wrong'':
1. Microsoft dominance means innovation will suffer. If the masses do not
have access to the proper tools, construction ``will be
delayed''.
2. Dependancy on any one entity for any one service is dangerous (the USGOV
should know this).
3. A win for Microsoft is a loss of freedom for the citizens of the United
States (and irrelavant for the rest of the world). A MS win would force
Non-USA people over to open-source quicker leaving the USA behind.
4. Open-Source is like a house-wife. To some, the wife seems to work for
free and is foolish to do so. To others, the quality of her work is most
important.
5. PC's come with MS Windows (as like sales tax does), ``like it or
not'' (monopolistic).
6. Information technology is too important for any one entity to control.
The people of the world should and will have control reguardless in the end
of what any one company or government does.
7. If Microsoft one day goes bankrupt (it could happen), then what?
James Galimi
[email protected]
MTC-00023085
From: Jay Cousins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As a web developer and Internet Service Provider since 1994, I have been a
witness to the steady erosion of the competitive environment within the
framework of the Internet and the software industry as a whole due to the
business practices of Microsoft.
In particular, Microsoft has used its licensing agreements to unfairly
erode its competitor's market share. Nowhere is this more obvious than in
the web browser category of software. The most egregious example, or at
least the example that affected the most end users, is that of the Netscape
web browser.
In order to restore some measure of competition and fairness to the web
browser market, I suggest that the following become part of the final
settlement agreement with Microsoft:
1. That three or four of the web browsers with the largest user bases
(excluding Microsoft's) be included in all future distributions of
Microsoft operating systems and any other software sold by Microsoft that
includes a web browser. These browsers should be available as icons on the
desktop or in exactly the same manner as any Microsoft browser that is
being offered.
2. Microsoft shall be mandated to share, in open source manner, completely
and fully, all operating system components that work to integrate any
Microsoft browser with a Microsoft operating system. Such sharing to be
monitored by the Justice Department and a panel of experts established for
the purpose of assuring compliance. This sharing to be without constraint
on the part of Microsoft with regard to competitive concerns or issues
related to any third party aquiring the knowledge necessary to implement
browser software that takes full advantage of a Microsoft operating system;
even though such knowledge is considered proprietary by Microsoft.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
Jay Cousins, General Manager
Runway.net
MTC-00023086
From: Jeff Schroeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Concerning my comments to the potential Microsoft settlement: I am opposed
to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I believe it
does not adequately redress the actions of Microsoft nor provide a good
mechanism for preventing their monopolistic practices.
The current proposal will not hinder Microsoft's monopoly in the computer
industry. They, of course, are claiming that it is a big victory for the
consumer and smaller companies, while the actual result is quite the
opposite. The proposed remedy is a mere slap on the wrist telling them not
to do it again! Some of the most noticeable problems are listed below:
1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of Windows-
compatible competing operating systems in its EULA for many products.
2. Large users (Enterprises and Universities) seem to be completely
unaffected by the settlement and, as before, have no financial incentive to
not use a Microsoft product. They are still charged on a per-processor
basis, no matter if the computer runs Windows or not. This problem can also
be evidenced by the huge amount of extra software that Microsoft bundles
with its Windows operating system. How can any company compete with
products that are distributed (without additional cost for the user) on 90%
of every personal computer?
3. Microsoft is not prevented from changing its software so that it can not
run on non-Microsoft Operating Systems or other dependant components.
4.Narrow definitions in the Settlement provide ample loop-holes for
Microsoft to exploit at will. Specific wording defines the current versions
of Microsoft products, without any room for future products. Windows CE and
other similar versions of Windows are also not included in many important
components of the Settlement.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only formalise
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.
If an organisation 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.
Thank you for your attention.
Jeff Schroeder
1047 Southern Artery #602
Quincy, MA 02169
MTC-00023087
From: Dick (038) Guen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:11pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
January 24, 2002
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft,
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
From: Richard & Guenivere Foss,
9 N. Cove,
Wenatchee, WA 98801
E-Mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
My husband and I both are retired. We have experienced the breakup of other
companies and the government's interference in matters that does not
concern it. A lawsuit should never have been brought against Microsoft.
Their fate should not fall into the hands of the U.S. government. PLEASE
REMEMBER THAT WHEN A FEDERAL JUDGE BROKE UP AT&T PHONE COMPANY TO HAVE
COMPETITION AND LOWER COSTS--thanks to the government interference our
costs have gone up each and
[[Page 27266]]
every year, phone bills are so many pages long now, (when we got our bill
before there was 1 or 2 pages only), now we have 5 to10 pages, WE ARE
BOMBARDED BY PHONE COMPANY CALLS TO SWITCH TO THEIR COMPANY, and costs have
never gone down. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT ONE PERSON SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE FATE
OF MICROSOFT.
Further litigation will only prolong this extensive negotiation process
that we have had to endure for the past three years. And it will only
hinder the progress of our computer industry which Bill Gates has advanced
remarkably well.
Sincerely,
/s/ Richard & Guenivere Foss,
9 N. Cove,
Wenatchee, WA 98801
E-Mail: [email protected]
MTC-00023088
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:14pm
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,
Sara McNabb
3805 Ridgemont Ct.
Bellingham, WA 98226
MTC-00023089
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:14pm
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,
Karen Day-Lyon, RN, CPHQ
467 Shannon Dr SE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
MTC-00023090
From: O'Connell, Daniel P.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 6:06pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
Sir/Ma'am,
I am writing this note to express my distain over the relativly light
treatment Microsoft seems to be getting in their settlement case. I am very
disappointed that a more punative and preventative settlement isn't being
metted to Microsoft. Their anti-competative and monopolistic practices
haven't been sidelined, and it's to the detriment to all computer users.
While I personally have always used Windows computers, I worked as a
network administrator in the past, and I marveled at the ease of use, and
lack of maintenance MACs needed. Now, Apple, Sun, Netscape, and other's are
struggling for survival because of Microsoft's unethical business
practices. If you can help keep Microsoft from stiffling competition, we'd
all be better off.
Daniel P. O'Connell
MTC-00023091
From: Peter Varlien
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read several articles in the media that demonstrate 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. If this is the case, then it should not be adopted without
substantial revision to address these problems.
For the record: I am a citizen of the United States of America, currently
residing abroad.
Best regards,
Peter Varlien
Peter VarlienTelephone:+47 7288 0572
Fritz Aabakkens vei 17Mobile phone:+47 917 69 384
N-7072 HeimdalTelefax/Voice mail:+47 904 10 648
NorwayEMail:[email protected]
ICQ#109226539World Wide Web:http://home.online.no/
&;varlien/
MTC-00023092
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:15pm
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,
Mike Welling
2208 Pennington Dr
Arlington, TX 76014-3512
MTC-00023093
From: Adam Ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:20pm
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the
current
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-00023094
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:17pm
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.
[[Page 27267]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
robert blau
1621 Columbia Ave
Chicago, IL 60626-4198
MTC-00023095
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:18pm
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,
billy hamblin
860 Hartman Ct
Adams, TN 37010-8939
MTC-00023096
From: Michael Rowley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
The settlement does nothing to redress any past action of microsoft which
has hurt the american consumer and other businesses by denying diversity
and technology to the computer public. It also does nothing to address the
current monopoly that exists with microsoft. This company has placed
themselves in a position very similar to IBM cira 1968, or Standard Oil,
and this settlement only makes noise at preventing them from spreading
their monopoly. It is less than useless. The only way to redress the
problem would be to separate the middleware and OS parts of microsoft in to
separate companies and forbid them from coercive behavior by enforcing this
separation. Also it would allow more diversity in operating systems, and
more choice and therefor more growth.
I believe this settlement was reached out of fear over the economy, and the
misguided belief that microsoft somehow holds the key to the computer
industry. In truth they have been strangling the computer industry for over
15 years. To truely increase growth microsoft must be stopped, or no growth
will occur, as they already control over 90% of the computers run in this
country. It is virtually imposible to buy a computer that does not contain
a microsoft operating system, or microsoft software as a cornerstone of the
computer. As long as microsoft holds that 90% monopoly, they will continue
to have a stranglehold on the computer industry.
Michael A Rowley.
MTC-00023098
From: Peter butcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:24pm
Subject: MS antitrust case--The Global Perspective
Hello DoJ
Have you considered your global responsibilities in this case? Microsoft
needs to be kept strong for the benefit of global consumers and in the
interests of the global economy.
I know that the USA takes a dim view of international legal processes, but
there is a strong moral argument for protecting the interests of non-US
residents. Your country is part of a global community in which which the
tyranny of distance is shrinking. Xbox graphics chips are made in Asia. Our
young people often seek work overseas. International tourism is (was)
increasing. We all tend to use and often depend on Microsoft products.
My main point is: ``What is the relevance of the IE/Netscape rivalries
of quite a few years ago to the situation today?'' If antitrust
justice is this slow, then it is simply not relevant, and is a damaging
distraction.
Microsoft has released over half a dozen new operating systems since then.
It is now making a splash in the game console market with the XBox, and is
planning a broader invasion of the living room with it's `` Home
Station''. We will all be better of if they can be left to focus on
technology for the present and the future, rather than fighting rearguard
legal actions from the past.
Don't get me wrong. I use Netscape. Mostly 4.7. I recently downloaded 6.2,
but do not like it. It may look stylish, but it is too like Internet
Explorer for my liking, especially the stop button function. Of course I do
not use Outlook or Outlook Express. Initially because I preferred the email
client that I was familiar with, but now mostly for security reasons.
Several clients of mine have had dreadful virus problems, particularly
BadtransB. Problems caused by a bug in the Microsoft email clients that
they use.
My point is that if Microsoft had not been so distracted by legal battles
from the past, then it could have concentrated more on securing it's
current products, and making us all better quality future products. yours
Peter W. Butcher
MTC-00023099
From: Chad Walters
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The terms of the proposed settlement with Microsoft do not go nearly far
enough to address the harm that Microsoft's predatory monopolistic
practices have wreaked upon the software industry. There are two glaring
deficiencies to the settlement as it stands:
1. no punitive damages for Microsoft's past infractions
2. no provision for strong punishment in the event of future infractions
Please reject the settlement as it stands.
Chad Walters
Chief Engineer
Anuvio Technologies, Inc.
415-356-1182
[email protected]
MTC-00023100
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:25pm
Subject: monopoly
i am distressed at the possibility that microsoft will not be treated with
justice i am a computer tech with 9 years working on peoples computers.
i have seen the web born and age. i have seen all the anti-free market and
anti-innovation that mr gates has deployed. please punish this man and get
him counseling.
the hold out 9 states are speaking the truth in the matter at hand and so
history will show whether you act justly or unjustly. make windows be just
an operating system...period. if the world was running on linux and oracle
it is possible sept 11th would not have happened
please please do the right thing
follow those 9 states reccomendations...all of them...i know they are the
right actions
please please do it.
john petillo
corvallis oregon
MTC-00023101
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:22pm
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,
Ray Laubenstein
54 Roberts Rd.
Marlborough, CT 06447
MTC-00023102
From: Michael Montz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think to settlement decision reached with Microsoft Inc.will not curtail
their practices that started this case and it is not in the best interest
of consumers
Regards,
[[Page 27268]]
Michael Montz
[email protected]
MTC-00023103
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:24pm
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,
Barbara Monteith
3095 Silver Lake Blvd.
Stow, OH 44224
MTC-00023104
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is a mistake. Microsoft will still
have a complete monopoly, and an effective statement from the judiciary of
State and Federal government that this is a blessed monopoly. Most likely,
they will continue to use their abusive tactics and monopolistic market
position to quash the rest of the field
My best analogy to this; A state highway department decides to manufacture
tires. They then change the surface of the roads to conform to their tire
surface, however, non-compliant tires wear twice as fast. As an added
bonus, they change the surface of the road and the tires, every two years
to keep sales up. (I know it is a far fetched analogy, however, the effect
is pronounced).
I think that the Software business and the Operating System business should
be seperated, and the Software business should be just as restricted in
access as third party software manufacturers are.
Note: This is my opinion alone. This does not reflect upon the opinion of
my company, its management or my peers.
MTC-00023105
From: mark hendricks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
--Original Message--
Reuters (01.23.2002 PST)--
Subject: Surprise Settlement Evenly Splits Microsoft; One Firm To Make
Software, Other To Make Patches
Decision Keeps Redmond from Monopolizing Massive Microsoft Patch Industry
Redmond, Wash. In a surprise settlement today with nine U.S. states,
Microsoft agreed to be split into two independent companies one that will
continue to make Microsoft operating systems, browsers, and server
software, and another, potentially larger company that will make patches
for Microsoft operating systems, browsers, and server software.
Critics immediately charged that the settlement which overrides a previous
agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice does nothing to diminish
Microsoft's standing as the world's most powerful software company. But
industry analysts argued that providing patches for security holes in
Microsoft programs is a major, untapped growth industry, and applauded the
states for not allowing Redmond to control it.
``Just consider, Microsoft can make an operating system, such as
Windows XP, and sell 200 million copies, but each one of those copies is
going to need at least five patches to fix security holes, so that's 1
billion patches,'' said Gartner Group analyst Mitch Fershing.
``That is an enormous, undeveloped market.''
Microsoft employees seem to agree, as sources in Redmond described a
``mad scramble'' among staffers to position themselves for spots
at the new company, called Patchsoft. Asked why people would want to leave
Microsoft for a startup, the source said the answer was ``really quite
simple.''
``Everyone here is asking themselves, ``Do I want to be part of
the problem, or part of the solution?'' he said. But J.P. Morgan
analyst Sherill Walk suspects another motive.
``Considering the sheer number of patches we're talking about, I think
the new company will become another monopoly, and I believe the people
who've jumped ship very well know that.'' ``Nonsense. It's really
all about consumer choice,'' responded Patchsoft's new co-CEOs, Bill
Gates and Steve Ballmer. But how will Patchsoft make money? Currently,
Microsoft issues free patches for problems in Windows XP, SQL Server,
Internet Explorer, Outlook, Windows 2000, Flight Simulator, Front Page,
Windows Me, Media Player, Passport, NT Server, Windows 98, LAN Manager (for
a complete list of MS software needing patches, see
www.support.microsoft.com). Under the agreement, Microsoft will no longer
issue patches, which Gates said explains the recent five-day outage at
Microsoft's upgrade site. ``That was planned,'' he said.
``It was a test of the Microsoft No Patch Access system. Went
perfectly. No one was able to download anything.''
At a press conference to outline the settlement, Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal pledged to keep a close eye on Patchsoft to
ensure it would not overcharge for its services. He also expressed hope
that other firms would soon become Certified Microsoft Patch Developers
(CMPDs) and challenge the spin-off. Asked if Patchsoft, with so many former
Microsoft employees, will have an advantage over potential competitors in
the Microsoft patch market, Blumenthal said the settlement prohibits
collaboration.
``Patchsoft developers will not have any foreknowledge of bugs or
security holes before software is released. They'll just have to be
surprised,'' he said. ``So it will be just like it was when they
were at Microsoft,'' he added. One Reuters reporter, meanwhile,
questioned the long-term viability of Patchsoft. ``This seems like a
logical split right now, but what if Microsoft's products improve to the
extent that patches are needed less frequently, or perhaps not at
all?'' she asked.
``I'm sorry, I can only respond to serious questions,''
Blumenthal answered.
MTC-00023106
From: bob budke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
The DoJ proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It is paltry, not even a
slap on the wrist, a sell-out. We spent millions convicting a corrupt and
abusive company for damages done to competition and innovation, only to
sell out when state coffers need a little cash.
If this is the way US companies get off, the same DoJ will probably give
Walker a walk, too.
It took 8 years to get rid of a bumpkin in the Whitehouse, is it going to
take that long to get rid of a DoJ-for rent?
Bob Budke
Walnut Creek, Ca
MTC-00023107
From: Greg G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Punishment
I don't agree with the idea of Microsoft giving software to schools for
their punishment. Microsoft is wanting to get their products into the
schools in order to get the kids started on their products. Punishment
should be fines and regulations regarding their business practices. I
believe Microsoft should be split up into two companies. One for operating
systems and one for browsers.
Greg
Greg G
[email protected]
(847) 563-3001 x2339--voicemail/fax
MTC-00023108
From: Brian Merkey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
The proposed Microsoft antitrust trial settlement does not help the schools
like Microsoft says it does. Much more could be done than they seem to plan
on doing with the supposed $1 billion cost to them. Our nation's poorest
schools do not need computers; they need real people who know how to work
with them; they need books that are not years out of date and falling
apart; they need classroom facilities which promote learning. Computers
provide none of this; rather they take away from the learning which could
otherwise occur.
[[Page 27269]]
I would like to see a punishment which is more in line with helping schools
out instead of one which furthers the Microsoft monopoly. Also, a monetary
punishment means nothing to such a large corporation. A better solution is
to limit its actions by a tightly regulated watchdog group. This would keep
Microsoft from abusing their monopoly like they have in the past.
In short, I feel that the proposed settlement does nothing to punish
Microsoft for its abuses and instead furthers their presence in the
computer world. Their claim of aid to children is a lie and should be
disregarded. Their plan does nothing to help the kids, and as such the
proposal should be rejected. In plain words: this is a vote against the
settlement.
Brian Merkey
MTC-00023109
From: johnjmedway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is STRANGLING the technology market and should be punished and
constrained far more than in the announced settlement proposal.
MTC-00023110
From: Linda DaCosta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's really a shame that the government is supporting the Microsoft
monopoly. I as a consumer am very disappointed in the manner in which my
opportunities have been limited. Has Bill Gates bought off the US
government too?
If you can do anything about this, please do. The future of America depends
on it.
MTC-00023111
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:30pm
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,
Carl & Mable Cole
141 John Street
Kelso, WA 98626-1861
MTC-00023112
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:30pm
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,
Carl & Mable Cole
141 John Street
Kelso, WA 98626-1861
MTC-00023113
From: Haverkamp Brenda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my outrage regarding the currently proposed
``penalty against'' Microsoft(The ``Proposed Final
Judgement''), because it is clearly more of a reward than a
punishment.
Microsoft is clearly happy because this ``settlement'' can only
serve to grow the monopoly it was supposededly intended to
``punish''.
One company shouldn't be coming so close to controlling our whole economy,
so much that when it breaks the law, it is rewarded under the a pretense of
punishment.
``The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic State itself. That in it's essence, is Fascism--ownership
of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private
power.''
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1938
MTC-00023115
From: Daynna Rodosovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea
MTC-00023116
From: warren497
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the government should be more aggressive to ensure Microsoft
competitors are not unfairly destroyed.
Clinton L. Warren
MTC-00023117
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:32pm
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,
Carolq Romano
3801 36th St
Port Arthur, TX 77642
MTC-00023118
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:32pm
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,
Delores Hadley
5 Fernwood Drive
Taylors, SC 29687
MTC-00023119
From: Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justice Department:
Its past time to stop the witch hunt against Microsoft--settle this
case today and lets let this great nation go forward with all the new
advanced items that only we can do in this free nation. Let free enterprise
succeed,
Thanks,
[[Page 27270]]
Ray & Doris Rogers
685 Fostoria Road
Port Clinton, OH. 43452
MTC-00023120
From: Craighead, Scot D
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov','nolandpeebles(a)attbi...
Date: 1/24/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was told that I could voice my opinion as a consumer regarding the
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case to you.
As a consumer, I am appalled by this ``settlement''. This is not
a settlement, but the Department of Justice changing sides after having won
the case. This settlement does nothing to stop the monopolistic practices
of Microsoft in the future. I use MS products as well as products from
other sources, but if MS is allowed to continue unhindered, there won't be
any other choices much longer. As the court has ruled, MS has on many
occasions elected to force the consumer to use MS products. The court has a
responsibility to protect the consumer from a company that has shown both
the ability and the disposition to use monopoly power to benefit itself at
the expense of both the consumer and anyone who might make a competing
product. Our government should do everything in it's power to encourage
competition between companies. Breaking MS into 2 companies does not hurt
the stock holders at MS, but it does relieve the conflict of interest
between an operating system and a software vendor that currently exists. As
things are now, there is no incentive for an investor to start a new
company to make any software product. If the product is successful at all,
MS will take action to destroy the company so that it does have to compete.
Remember that it is people that owned the stock of the companies, like
Netscape, that have been hurt.
It is competition that has made the United States great. Without
competition, a company can produce poor products and charge high rates for
it because I, the consumer, have no choice but to buy the product. We need
to vote with our buying choices for which product is better to encourage
companies to make better products at better prices. Please reconsider this
settlement. Thank you.
Scot Craighead
8147 SW Fanno Creek Dr
Tigard, OR 97224
MTC-00023121
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:33pm
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,
Duane Hadley
5 Fernwood Drive
Taylors, SC 29687
MTC-00023122
From: Stephanie R Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00023123
From: Kroll, Dave
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not accept the Microsoft Settlement as proposed.
It does nothing to ensure competition in the operating system industry.
Thank you!
David Kroll
Quality Systems Specialist
402-533-1449
* new * 402-533-4071 (Cell)
[email protected]:Dave_Kroll&com
mat;cargilldow.com]
MTC-00023124
From: Adam Ingleby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adam Ingleby
3247 Alta Hills Drive
Sandy, UT 84093
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Three years ago, Microsoft was brought to trial for various antitrust
violations. Six months ago, negotiations began to determine what a
satisfactory settlement would entail. Last November, a settlement was
finally reached. I am annoyed that the suit has dragged on for this long
already. The case has not only had a negative effect on Microsoft and the
Department of Justice in terms of wasted resources, it has also been
detrimental to the economy, the IT industry, and the American public.
The settlement that was reached last year is perfectly reasonable.
Microsoft has agreed to a broad spectrum of restrictions and affirmative
obligations aimed not only at prohibiting future antitrust violation, but
also at allowing Microsoft's competitors the opportunity to compete fairly
in the market. Microsoft has agreed, for example, not to retaliate when any
software is introduced into the market that directly competes with
Microsoft technology. Moreover, Microsoft plans to document and disclose
interfaces integral to the Windows operating system for use by its
competitors in order to function within the Microsoft framework. The
settlement is not only just, it is fair. Some of the terms Microsoft agreed
to extend to products and procedures that the Court of Appeals did not find
to be in violation of antitrust laws.
I do not believe it is necessary to continue to try Microsoft in this
matter.
I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to
pursue litigation against Microsoft. Extended suit against Microsoft can
only result in more economic hardship and trouble for consumers. I urge you
to finalize the settlement as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Adam Ingleby
MTC-00023125
From: Colin Stuart
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a former Microsoft employee, I disagree with the terms of the proposed
Microsoft settlement. At a minumum, I believe the remedies outlined by Dan
Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html should be implemented.
In general, an Operating System should publish APIs which allow anyone to
write a component that ``plugs'' into place. Currently, Microsoft
applications ``plug-in'' to the operating system in proprietary
ways, making fair competition on the application front impossible. I feel
that competition and quality in the software industry would be maximized if
Microsoft were 2 companies, one OS company, and one Apps company.
thank you,
Colin Stuart
Sr. Software Engineer
Anuvio Technologies
San Francisco, CA
MTC-00023126
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:35pm
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,
Alan Soltis
P.O. Box 265
[[Page 27271]]
315 Basswood Ave.
Upsala, MN 56384-0265
MTC-00023127
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Department of Justice:
I would like to voice my feelings about the Microsoft Settlement. Recently
several friends and I were discussing this lawsuit. Most of us voiced the
opinion that the stock market decline began when these lawsuits started
against Microsoft. We (90%) have the conviction that Microsoft is an honest
company. They are practicing the American free enterprise system. We
fervently hope this case will end soon with a good result for Microsoft. I
must tell you the group I speak of are mothers and grandmothers. We are not
financial wizards. However, we are or have raised children, and we know
right from wrong.
Most Sincerely,
Connie McCormick
Fort Myers, Fl. 33919
MTC-00023128
From: Richard Stamm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
Most briefly, I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea.
Yours truly,
Richard P. Stamm
MTC-00023129
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:37pm
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 Lake
154 E. Shore Dr.
Whitmore Lake, MI 48189-9441
MTC-00023130
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:38pm
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,
John Edwards
149 Giles Dr.
Mendenhall, MS 39114
MTC-00023131
From: Ed, Zhenie, and K.C. Smallwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam-
I would like to protest your proposed settlement with Microsoft of the
antitrust case. After going over coverage of the proposed settlement, it
would appear at best that there are no teeth in the proposal.
Just what do you intend to do to Microsoft if it does not adhere to the
settlement? Indeed, how can you even tell if they are not adhearing to the
settlement? What activities does the settlement bar that are not allowed in
some other part of the settlement?
Do not allow this settlement to go through. Allowing any one company a
stranglehold on a key market, such as computers, is NOT in the public
interest.
Edward K. Smallwood
MTC-00023132
From: Harry Wynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this case should be settled in Microsofts favor now. Thank you,
Harry Wynn
MTC-023133
From: Hans Fairchild
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:44pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comment
To be brief:
After observing the computer industry for the last 10 years or so, I have
come to the conclusion that one of Microsoft's main techniques for
maintaining their monopoly is the use of proprietary file formats and
``standards''. In order for any corrective action to be
effective, it must address this concern.
My feeling is that Microsoft should be required to publish full
descriptions of all programming interfaces, file formats, communications
protocols and authentication protocols.
I feel that any truly unbiased person who fully examines the Microsoft
situation would come to the same conclusion.
Hans Fairchild
MTC-00023134
From: NPrewitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:45pm
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT SUIT
I personally think it's time to drop this crap with Microsoft and let them
get on with running the company and developing products. If it wasn't for
Microsoft the normal public would still be in the 1800 century and know
nothing about computers, how they work, or ever be able to own one.
Please drop this crap and use the money to try these people who waged a war
on the US rather than on stupid law suits against Microsoft.
Thank you....
MTC-00023135
From: Nick Fankhauser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello-
I am writing this message to comment on the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
for consideration in the Tunney act proceedings on this case.
I do not believe the settlement adequately discourages future unfair trade
practices on the part of Microsoft. In particular, this settlement
continues to allow retaliation against small OEMs that sell Intel-based
computers with competing operating systems installed. (Section III-B and
Section III-A-2) This is only one of the many flaws in this settlement.
The country is watching.
We understand what this case is about.
We expect Justice.
Nick Fankhauser
[email protected]
MTC-00023136
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
From: Peter Pethoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust- MS Internet Explorer.
CC:
Peter Pethoe
MTC-00023136--0001
file:///c/win/temp/tmp.
[email protected]
Your Honor,
When first using the Internet I enjoyed using the Netscape browser. I
particularly liked the ``search for a word'' in the text feature.
It was easy to use and the word being searched remained and did not have to
be retyped. Since I was searching for a particular word through many
documents this was a real time saver. But other features made use of the
Netscape browser more difficult on many websites that used MS Internet
Explorer. Results were inconsistent using Netscape, most likely because
Microsoft put bugs into these programs to
[[Page 27272]]
make Netscape users by disgruntled and switch. I eventually also was
reluctantly forced to switch to MS Internet Explorer to escape these
software bugs.
Now on MS Internet Explorer search for a word feature the word searched
remains in place only if one first cancels the search. The next time Alt F
is used the original word to be searched comes up.
But this is a time consuming way of handling this situation.
I seek a remedy to this problem that Microsoft initiated.
I would also like some monetary or some other suitable compensation for my
reduced productivity since being forced to use MS Internet Explorer several
years ago.
Sincerely,
--- Peter Pethoe
424 Escalona Dr.,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
--- ppethoe@ix,netcom.com
MTC-00023137
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:42pm
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,
Merritt Stru
1343 S Loma Vista
Mesa, AZ 85204
MTC-00023138
From: Sensei Kurisu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it concerns,
I believe that the United States government is taking it a little too easy
on Microsoft in their antitrust case. I think it should last for more than
5 years. The entire life of the company might be a better way.
MTC-00023139
From: Seth Alan Kintigh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, my suggestion
I realize my opinion is meaningless to an administration so wholly and
completely owned by campaign contributors, but here goes.
After MS was found guilty so many times of antitrust violations in federal
court, I'm appalled that the DOJ would sell out and settle at all, never
mind craft a ``settlement'' in which MS donates a
``billion'' dollars worth of software to schools, i.e. helping
them while causing no harm. Even excluding the fact they have been found
guilty of illegally holding prices high, that software donation could
conceivably cost them $0.35 for a CDR of the license numbers and some
bandwidth for the downloads-- software, e-manuals and all. In return
the country would have a bigger monopoly and schools full of buggy,
insecure software, requiring schools to spend money hiring IT personal to
keep it running.
In the future, you need to be a little more sneaky when taking bribes, I
mean contributions, as no one but Bill Gates would think that settlement
was a good idea. Well, maybe Enron or one of your other owners, I mean
contributors, would.
Now here's my suggestion. It's fair and logical, so there's no chance of it
happening, but I'm stubborn.
Fact: MS has crushed other business, destroyed companies, and hurt people
like me using anti-competitive practices, even ``vaporware'' to
kill companies back here in New England just to keep them from innovating.
Therefore, a settlement that only helps MS and does not harm them is NOT
fair (emphasized for the less intelligent).
Therefore, a FAIR settlement would harm MS. This is called
``punishment.''
Now, the problem is to find a punishment that also helps America, and
prevents future abuse, while not destroying MS. One obvious solution is to
split MS into two companies: one that makes Windows, and one that makes
applications for windows. I think we'll find that the second company will
even make their products work on other OSes like Linux, as that is logical,
and the only reason MS doesn't do that now is because they are being anti-
competitive.
One could also split them into 3 companies, the third being an Internet
division, but I'm sure people far smarter than me could better explain that
idea.
MTC-00023140
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:44pm
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,
DOLORES MCLAUGHLIN
410 WEST 24TH STREET
APT. 3L
NEW YORK, NY 10011-1307
MTC-00023141
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In the best interest of the economy, and our country, I would certainly
hope that all parties would put behind us this case and abide by the
settlement achieved by the U.S. government and various state
attorneys''. I view this situation as very harmful to the consumer and
our economy. I have always seen this case as big government representing
competitors of Microsoft who were able to get the attention of key
political leaders to take up their cause. I never could see the harm being
brought to the consumer. Competition is tough and that is what our company
and family business had to do everyday in order to succeed. I am extremely
disappointed by the suit being brought by AOL. It smacks of a possible
looting of the bank account of Microsoft. Nobody ever looks at the bigger
picture and that is very disappointing. I view at as nothing more than
greed and jealousy by our government and certain companies involved in the
competitive world with Microsoft.
In all my years of watching Microsoft, I never once heard a consumer talk
about being ripped off by Microsoft, I only heard a few competitors crying
foul.
MTC-00023142
From: zaphod beeblebrox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea, people are missing out on a lot of
stuff that computers are capable of because of their power.
MTC-00023143
From: RLifsey357
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is hoped that this settlement comes to a conclusion as soon as possible
to avoid any possible further interjections by companies like AOL who only
propose to make Microsoft look bad in the eyes of consumers. Bringing
further litigation to the table is a waste of tax payer money and only
furthers to separate the two companies from coming to an amicable agreement
to work together to help consumers.
It seems Microsoft extends it's hand to work with AOL only to have it
slapped; a thought to be considered.
Thank you,
Richard Lifsey
Metairie, LA
MTC-00023144
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:46pm
[[Page 27273]]
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,
bill goldston
1 oceans west blvd.
daytona beach, FL 32118
MTC-00023145
From: Scott Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
Microsoft XP requires an ``activation key'' after being installed
for 30 or more days IN ADDITION to the serial code received when the
product was purchased.
If the user does not contact Microsoft within the 30 days to get an
additional ``activation key'', the computer becomes completely
inoperative. In addition the user cannot access ANY private data stored on
the computer without getting an activation key.
Microsoft is forcing me to give them private information about me in order
to access my personal data on my private computer which happens to be using
a completely legal copy of Windows XP that was bought at a legitimate
retail outlet.
No company should be able to force a citizen to reveal private information
that citizen does not want to reveal in order to access private information
on a computer for which they have already paid.
When I buy ANY product, I do so with the implicit understanding that the
product is protected by copyright and patent laws and that I cannot
reproduce the product. When I buy, for example, a vacuum, I am not required
to give the manufacturer of the vacuum my name, address, phone number, or
where I bought the vacuum. Nor does the vacuum stop working after 30 days
if I refuse to contact the manufacturer. I don't even have to do that for
ANY other software I buy.
Microsoft's monopoly allows them to impose incredibly unreasonable
restrictions on consumers like me who buy their products because there are
no competing products to choose from. As an example, Microsoft's web
publishing software comes with a license that restricts the user from
publishing web pages that are derogatory or critical of Microsoft or its
products. This is like having a telephone company sell you a phone, and
then saying you can't say bad things about the phone company if you are
using the phone you bought from them!
Microsoft can only do this sort of thing to consumers because it is a
monopoly, and there are NO provisions in the proposed settlement to address
consumer issues. All the remedies are focused on remedies for software
companies who are damaged by Microsoft's illegal business activities, but
there are no provisions for reigning in Microsoft's unforgivable behaviour
towards the end users who are forced to buy their products for lack of
another choice.
MTC-00023146
From: Josh Prokop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is not just a bad idea, it's waste of time and tax
payers money. It is so full of loopholes for Microsoft that it has to be a
joke. Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive practices. This
settlement does nothing to prevent this behavior in the future.
It's time to stop playing games and get serious about this problem.
Josh Prokop, Software Developer
P.O.Box 1050
Brewster, MA 02631
MTC-00023147
From: sedwards POP account sedward1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement proposed is a shameful embarrassment for this country, and
an insult to all men and women of integrity. Bill Gates has shown that he
has no concept of ethical behavior, and has predicated his company on the
premise that cheating, lying, misleading and stealing are useful tools in
the pursuit of success.
Sue Edwards
Salt Lake City, Utah
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023148
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:46pm
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,
Ray McInerny, sr.,
3565 Greenlawn Terrace
New Berlin,, WI 53151-4371
MTC-00023149
From: Sean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
to whom it may concern:
i am disgusted by the proposed settlement that microsoft has been given by
our government. the government's case clearly stated that microsoft had
UNJUSTLY used it's influence and leveraging power as to prevent other
companies from competing in the same space.
the idea that to remedy this is by allowing microsoft to give away
computers and software to children (where they traditionally have had a
much smaller market share) is ludicrous, laughable and unbelievably short-
sighted. the government is not punishing microsoft by doing this, it is
HELPING them enhance their already punishing stranglehold on an industry
and on the education market. please, do not allow this to happen. this
settlement in the interest of consumers and numerous businesses MUST be
reworked and microsoft must not be allowed to further extend their
monopolistic practices.
sincerely and respectfully,
sean driscoll
ny, ny.
MTC-00023150
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:49pm
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,
Irl Nikkel
325 S. Aurora
Geary, OK 73040
MTC-00023151
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
[[Page 27274]]
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,
Jacquelyn L. Marsh
1350 Woodside Terrace #3
Woodland, WA 98674-9458
MTC-00023152
From: David Posey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I think the settlement, as currently constructed, is rediculous. That is,
DOJ has apparently caved in to Microsoft, despite having won it's case in
court.
Let me get this straight:
a) The court found that Microsoft has been able to exert monopoly power.
b) The court found that Microsoft has and continues to abuse that power to
the detriment of US citizens (and state citizens, and other countries, of
course).
Despite these reasonably clear findings, the settlement does exactly
nothing to improve the situation. Either of the following choices seem
reasonable to me:
a) Massive $ penalties for illegal conduct, stifling competition, price
gouging, etc.
b) Break the company into smaller entities, with $ penalties explicitly
tied to infringement of any of their separation conditions.
I'm extraordinarily disappointed that the DOJ (and the state AGs who joined
them) have caved in so completely. This is a complete waste of time and
money--if DOJ is incompetent to bring and win these cases, I'd like to
see this branch of DOJ disbanded completely. After all, if they can't
achieve a reasonable settlement, after spending millions of $ to WIN the
case in court, what use are they???
Regards,
David Posey
Software developer since 1980.
MTC-00023153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a Microsoft customer. I think they have done great things for the
Nation. Please vacate any further action against that company. Those who
continue to push this case ar vultures hanging around for some large scraps
which they don't deserve. John M. Sweet Boulder, CO
344 S 68th St. 303 494-5259
MTC-00023154
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:50pm
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,
Martha Haserodt
7186 Prospect Dublin Road
Prospect, OH 43342-9553
MTC-00023155
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:51pm
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 & Loretta Miles
1171 Township Line Road
Port Angeles, WA 98362-7438
MTC-00023156
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:51pm
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,
Bernadette Hein
72 Cambridge Dr.
Hershey, PA 17033
MTC-00023157
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:52pm
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,
Richard Price
243 S. Medina Line Rd.
Akron, OH 44321-1158
MTC-00023158
From: David Kuder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Ms. Hess,
Even while attempting to send this message to you I ran into an instance Of
Microsoft's power. My company requires me to use Outlook and it gives Me
(that ``Me'' was capitalized by Outlook not me) two choices for
composing messages: Word or whatever this thing that I'm typing at is.
Whatever it is it's sad. Its programmers believe that I can't spell or
type.
[[Page 27275]]
I am against the proposed Final Judgement. I feel is does a poor job of
punishing Microsoft for its actions. I also strongly feel it does a poor
job of requiring or encouraging Microsoft to correct its behaviour. I'm not
a lawyer. I just stuck a dart in the PFJ and hit section III.J.2.b.
One reading of that section would be: ``Microsoft promises to continue
to deny individuals with purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research from seeing their APIs
because those are not legitimate business needs''. As Bruce Perens
writes in http://slashdot.org/features/980720/0819202.shtml:
First, publish the source code to your program, or, in the case of a
cryptography program, publish complete details of the encryption algorithm
so that a programmer can understand exactly how the code works. Encourage
programmers to study your system and to attempt to break it. Only when a
program has been publicly reviewed this way, and when people have tried to
break it and have failed, can you be assured that it's useful for
concealing your secrets.
But PFJ allows them to deny in the name of security the one thing all
security experts agree on--there is no security through obscurity.
MTC-00023159
From: Jim Ault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The PFJ fails to prohibit Anticompetitive Licensing terms that Microsoft
currently uses to keep Open Source applications from running on Windows. I
believe that Microsoft is buying its way out of this predicament, and I
don't believe the PFJ is satisfactory to consumers at all.
Far too many of Microsoft's anticompetitive practices are continuing to
this day, and the PFJ will do nothing to change most of them. Please do not
adopt the PFJ without substantial changes to address the deficiencies
outlined by Dan Kegel on www.kegel.com.
Thank you
James Ault
1 Hialeah Drive
Albany, NY 12205
MTC-00023160
From: Eric R. Swanson, P.E.
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
I do not approve of the settlement with Microsoft, Inc. I believe the
settlement is neither adequate compensation for the damage done or
appropriate to restore vigor and diversity to the software development
business. I have had long experience in software development dating back to
vacuum tube computers. I watched the extreme expansion of software in the
70's and 80's. Comparatively, little has been done in the last decade. Was
this because of Microsoft? Was the ``Dot.com'' revolution
technically where it was and when it was because Microsoft wasn't?
Eric R. Swanson
MTC-00023162
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:56pm
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,
Linda Martin
644 SW 144th Place
Seattle, WA 98166-1574
MTC-00023163
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:55pm
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,
Richard & Sondra Andersen
221 Mary Place
Muscatine, IA 52761-5503
MTC-00023164
From: Ben Jansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am one of the many people who feel that the Microsoft Settlement is
ineffective in accomplishing the trial's original purpose.
Please don't allow this joke to go through.
- Benjamin Jansen
MTC-00023165
From: Raible, Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a professional programmer for nearly 20 years (I graduated from MIT),
there are so many aspects of the microsoft case that it's hard to know
where to begin.
Regardless of other details, to me the single most important requirement is
full documentation of all APIs that the company produces. Without full and
open documentation, their monopoly power will never be diminished.
Thank you for your consideration.
Eric Raible
Los Gatos CA
MTC-00023166
From: Cog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement currently being proposed critically flawed in
a number of ways. Cog.
MTC-00023167
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:58pm
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,
David Foushee
1490 Payne Rd.
Ekron, KY 40117
MTC-00023168
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:59pm
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.
[[Page 27276]]
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,
Jean-Claude Gagnebin
23 Berkshire Dr.
Danbury, CT 06811-4713
MTC-00023169
From: CSAZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I know you are probably receiving a large volume of mail about this and
don't have time to read everything.
The short version of my comment is: Leave Microsoft alone and drop all this
silly nonsense.
The longer version of my comment is as follows:
I do not, nor have I ever worked for Microsoft. I have no stock or any
other financial interest in the company. I am, however, a computer user of
many years as well as a self-employed consultant and programmer. I remember
well the late 70's and early 80's when there was no dominant operating
system other than CP/M, and that required a different version for every
computer as well as programs tweaked specifically for that version of CP/M
It is amazing to me that anyone can look at the progress in computers and
software and the dramatic decrease in costs to the consumer for both
hardware and software, and then turn around and say that Microsoft has hurt
the consumer! Word Perfect used to costs hundreds of dollars just for the
Word Processor. They chose to ignore the Windows operating system, and they
lost their market share as a result. Today, you can buy Microsoft Office
with Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Presentation tool, Database, Personal
Information Manager, Web Site designer, etc. for less than what Word
Perfect used to charge just for their Word Processor. Where has the
consumer been damaged in all this?
Netscape used to dominate the browser market and basically gave away their
browser. When they owned 95% of the market, nobody in the Justice
department was crying foul and investigating them for having a monopoly in
the Web Browser market.
Apple computer consistently quashes any attempt by anyone to build systems
that are compatible with Apple which results in higher prices for their
systems than PC's, yet nobody is investigating them for squelching
competition. Sun has been just as draconian with their software and
operating systems as Microsoft has, but since they are smaller, they get
away with it. They have not helped to lower the cost of software or
hardware in any way. They came out with Star Office to replace Microsoft
Office, but it hasn't affected prices any as the prices are already very
fair for the benefit one gets from them.
If Microsoft has indeed done things illegally, they should be punished for
it. However, I think that much of this case is about people missing the
boat and who would do and have done the same things they are complaining
that Microsoft has done.
Not only has there been no proof that Microsoft's market share has caused
anything but benefits to the consumer, nothing has ever been proposed to
compensate anyone who has allegedly been damaged by their actions. Taking
money from Microsoft and giving it to states to do whatever they want with
it hardly compensates consumers for any damages they may have had caused to
them by Microsoft.
As a programmer, I am glad I can depend on Internet Explorer being
installed on my client's machines. It enables me to add online connectivity
easily. If I can't depend on it being there, I either have to write
multiple versions of my software for each type of browser that may be
installed, or my customer is going to have to install Internet Explorer
anyway. I would most likely go to the second option, but it still creates
another, and unnecessary, layer of installation issues for my clients.
Sincerely,
Matthew Brock
Matthew J. Brock--[mailto:[email protected]
Computer Solutions:AZ--http://www.delphi-programmer.com
Tucson, AZ--Phone: 520-577-6625
Systems Sales, Service, Networking, Troubleshooting
C U S T O M P R O G R A M M I N G A V A I L A B L E ! !
MTC-00023170
From: Scott Thomason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to find the proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft
inadequate. Please consider the many rational and fair alternatives so
articulately expressed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ and the links
within. I find the suggestions revolving around the theme of open standards
and interfaces to be particularly sensible. A company with Microsoft's
size, market penetration, and anti-competitive aggression should be
required to develop product and technologies in a way that gives the world
a fighting chance at choice.
MTC-00023173
From: Gary Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has long used its monopoly power to make it impossible for
competitors in non-OS fields to survive, by copying their innovations into
Windows, under the guise of their right to ``innovate''. They
have never innovated. They have only used their monopoly power to copy the
innovators and put them out of business.
It is anti-competitive behavior at its worst.
This MUST stop.
Please do the responsible thing and MAKE IT STOP.
As the president of a software company that greatly fears the possibility
that microsoft will copy what we do and use their monopoly power against
us, I ask you, Please, please do the right thing.
--Gary
Gary Robinson
President
Transpose, LLC
[email protected]
207-942-3463
http://www.transpose.com
MTC-00023174
From: Steve Litt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Steve Litt
Webmaster: Troubleshooters.Com
385 Forest Park Circle
Longwood, FL. 32779
407-786-1278
[email protected]
To: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
1/24/2002
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
Reviewing the proposed stipulation and revised final judgment against
Microsoft (the settlement), I find the proposed settlement wholly
inadequate to restore competition in the marketplace, to provide remedy to
those who have been harmed, to prevent future illegal acts by Microsoft, or
to establish even a modicum of respect for the credibility of the law. It
is likely that provisions III.J.2.b and c will be used to deny API access
to Open Source projects. The cost associated with III.J.2.d is not
affordable by the vast majority of Open Source projects, so it further
denies access, even if Microsofts restrictions are deemed
``unreasonable''. I believe it's no accident Microsoft wanted
this language in the settlement.
Open Source (such as Linux) is Microsoft's only remaining competition, due
to the extreme marketplace distortion created by Microsoft's illegal acts,
such as Microsoft's revenue starvation techniques (see ``We are going
to cut off their air supply'' in I.16 of the Civil Action No.
98-1232 complaint). Microsoft cannot kill Open Source by
``cutting off their air supply'' because the Open Source
development model requires no revenue. So instead of competing head to head
on features and reliability, Microsoft seeks to hamper Open Source by
denying them API access in order to interoperate with Microsoft products.
There's no reason to restrict access to the API. API's are not code--
they're just a standard. A secret API does not protect one from viruses. In
fact, Open Source products, whose API is accessible by all interested
parties, has a much better record than Microsoft when it comes to security.
Likewise, ``piracy protection'' does not require secret API
calls. Microsoft wants provisions III.J.2.b, c and d to restrict their
competition, not to prevent security threats or piracy.
If this settlement is approved, Microsoft will have used the court to
further sabotage their competition.
Even more unsettling is the enforcement of this settlement. Provision
IV.B.6.a places the three member technical committee assigned
[[Page 27277]]
to enforce this settlement on the payroll of Microsoft. This is an obvious
conflict of interest. It would be better to fine Microsoft an extra few
million, and have the government pay the technical committee out of those
funds. Worse yet, Microsoft has every incentive to violate this settlement
agreement. Section V, parts A and B, provide that the settlement will last
5 years, but if Microsoft violates the settlement it will last a maximum of
7 years. It basically gives them permission to thumb their nose at the law
for 7 years, and repress the marketplace for 7 years.
What does this settlement say to the average citizen? Microsoft was found
to be an illegal monopoly by Judge Jackson, and this finding was upheld by
the appeals court. And their punishment is 7 years of toothless
observation, during which time the very language of the settlement provides
them with tools to attempt to destroy their one remaining competitor. This
is akin to a bank robber being found guilty initially and on appeals, and
being placed on observation for 7 years. No repaying the bank. No remorse
required. No punishment. No real disincentive to rob again. This settlement
weakens respect for the law. For the people of this country, this
settlement sets a horrible precident.
I believe Microsoft should be subjected to a structural remedy, or at the
very least very serious behavioral remedies. Nothing short of that would
change their behavior. Throughout their history, Microsoft has shown
themselves to be scoundrels:
* Caldera alleged that Microsoft had placed booby traps in their Windows
3.0 product to prevent its installation over Microsoft competitor DR DOS.
Rather than prove their innocence, Microsoft paid Caldera $155 million.
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/technology/html98/
cald--20000111.html)
* Microsoft created a ``Windows only'' version of Java, and it
took a lawsuit by Java inventor Sun to stop them from removing Java's most
sacred feature-- write once run everywhere.
* Using predatory pricing, Microsoft destroyed rival Netscape, and removed
all incentive for anyone to create a competing browser.
* Microsoft took the Open Standard, Open Source Kerberos authentication
standard, added code to make it incompatible with Open Source
implementations, and then declared the revised product their intellectual
property, thus eliminating Open Source/Windows interoperability. Only those
with an iron clad monopoly would cynically cut off the rest of the world
like that.
* Unable to kill Open Source with their customary revenue starvation
techniques, Microsoft's Jim Allchin put out feelers to congress to outlaw
Open Source (see http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/
0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html).
* Microsoft attempted to commandeer all content passing through their
Passport server, regardless of copyright, patent or trade secret. (see
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html).In that case their bluff
was called by privacy advocates and newspapers, and they backed down.
* Microsoft's .Net architecture is required for many features of their new
operating system, Windows XP.
* Microsoft is in the process of converting everyone to their .Net
architecture, which funnels all communication through Microsoft's Passport
server. If Microsoft succeeds, they will control the single tollgate on the
entire Internet, and they will no longer need an OS, middleware or browser
monopoly.
In considering whether the proposed settlement is prudent, please keep in
mind that Microsoft has continually behaved as if their core competancy was
monopolism. Their product choices were based not on customer needs, but on
killing the competition. With their .Net architecture fast on the way to
monopoly status, it's clear that their past, present, and future is
dedicated to monopolism. Please stop this illegal monopolistic behavior,
once and for all.
Finally, as you read the many emails praising the settlement, or even
saying it's too tough on Microsoft, consider their source. On 4/10/1998 the
L.A. Times reported that Microsoft was paying freelance writers to pretend
to be ordinary citizens and write letters to the media (http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/business/html98/pr--041098.html). On 8/
23/2001 the L.A. times reported that Microsoft had paid freelance writers
to pretend to be ordinary citizens and write to the state attorneys general
asking the attorneys general to go easy on Microsoft. Two of the purported
``citizens'' turned out to be dead.
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
134332634--microlob23.html). Judge Kollar-Kotelly, it's very likely
that most of your pro-Microsoft emails and letters were paid for by
Microsoft. If one figures $75 per letter, Microsoft could fund a million
letters for $75 million-- half what they paid Caldera to stop the DR
DOS sabotage suit.
Please protect our economy, our nation and our society from these
predators. Reject the settlement, and construct a remedy that punishes past
illegal acts and prevents future ones.
Steve Litt
Webmaster, Troubleshooters.Com
http://www.troubleshooters.com
[email protected]
MTC-00023175
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:04pm
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,
Darrell Fitts
3221 Judy Court
Shreveport, LA 71119
MTC-00023176
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:05pm
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,
Cheryl Sanger-Morrison
5524 Timbercreek Ln.
Stow, OH 44224
MTC-00023177
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:05pm
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,
Thomas Shupper
5654 S. Marion Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74135
MTC-00023178
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27278]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:07pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
Microsoft is an adjudicated monopolist; it has demonstrated its utter
insensitivity to that fact; and it continues to use whatever economic
leverage it has as if it were a garage-housed start up company. These guys
simply don't get it and, regardless of their intentions, they cannot be
allowed, for another decade, to throw Microsoft's weight around the economy
without seriously negative consequeces for innovation, if not for software
pricing.
Your settlement can't get to the heart of the problem. The heart of the
problem is the Gates mentality, which can only be addressed through some
kind of an epiphany or through divestiture; and the court took the latter
off the table. But you could, at least, insist on behavioral restrictions
and disclosure requirements that dampen and/or publicize Microsoft's
bullying of other market participants. I don't think you've done that.
John Sieger
Houston, Texas
(713) 869-6574
[email protected]
MTC-00023179
From: David Christie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:08pm
Subject: Comments re: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I wish to register my disapproval of the proposed settlement in the case of
U.S. vs. Microsoft. It does not address the harm done by the illegal
conduct of Microsoft Corporation and it would not adequately protect the
public against future harm from Microsoft's illegal maintenance and
extension of its operating system monopoly.
As a former employee and stockholder of Netscape Corporation I was directly
harmed by Microsoft's illegal practices. I have waited patiently for
intervention which I always knew would come too late to save Netscape.
However, I never anticipated Microsoft would escape effective sanctions,
escape being broken up, and emerge stronger and more ambitious in its
monopolistic behaviors than ever.
Allowing Microsoft to evade responsibility for its actions, and leaving it
free to continue its depredations of the industry, is akin to allowing
Saddam Hussein to remain in power after the Gulf War: a big mistake.
Microsoft was found guilty. It should now be held accountable. I urge the
court to approve only a settlement that effectively restrains Microsoft
from illegally extending its monopoly in the future. Of all the settlement
provisions that have been debated, the most effective would be to require
Microsoft to open the source code of its operating system under an open-
source software license. That is the only way to guarantee that Microsoft
will have competition in its core marketplace of operating system software.
Currently Microsoft's ability to keep its source code private prevents
effective competition by allowing Microsoft to hide the details of how
compatible competing operating system software could be written. Secret
operating system software is bad engineering, bad for the marketplace, and
an invitation to illegal monopolistic business practices. It is bad public
policy and bad antitrust law to allow it in software that controls 90% of
the computers in the marketplace.
If the source code were open, Microsoft would still have a long lead on its
competitors, but the possibility of competition would exist. Therefore,
Microsoft would be unable, in practice, to exploit its monopoly as
ruthlessly as it has in the past.
The remedy seems clear. Microsoft abused its operating system software
monopoly illegally. The direct solution is to limit the basis for that
monopoly: the secrecy of Microsoft's proprietary source code. Stop
Microsoft from keeping its operating system software source code under
wraps, level the playing field, and in so doing, open the industry up to
competition again.
Thank you.
David B. Christie
915 Peggy Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
MTC-00023180
From: A. David Garza Marin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi. My name is A. David Garza Marin.
Since 1985, the first name I saw in my PC (a very old one) was Microsoft.
Since then, the name impacted my life and way of work. Then I was the
``rebel'' one who didn't use Mac or Apple computers, who
developed applications with BASIC, and who started to use one strange thing
called Windows (and OS/2, by the way).
Through the years, Microsoft had grown consistently and I, strangely,
passed from ``the rebel'' side to ``the standard''
side, because Microsoft grown with me and my computer related workings. I
also saw in my country, Mexico, that everything started to grow by the
first years of the 90's: all of that because Microsoft used its right to
innovate with Microsoft Windows 3.x.
Today, there are more than 30,000 people employed by Microsoft. There are
lots of additional people who are working RIGHT NOW just because Microsoft
used its right to innovate. Just to mention, there are magazines, complete
enterprises, consultants, developers, users, ``even boys and girls'' whose
income or work depends on Microsoft technologies, and its right to
innovate... Here in Mexico, at least 90% of the industry based in computer
technology (one way or another) depends on Microsoft technologies and its
right to innovate.
Last decade, Microsoft helped in many ways --using its holy right to
innovate-- many mexican enterprises to grow, and day by day, more
other newly created and existing enterprises are using Microsoft
technologies to grow in turn. I know that there are many, many other
software enterprises that can help to this grow but, how many of the
existing users could want to re-invest in their technologies and re-start
to learn? What really helped in this ``technologized'' new world
are standards, and Microsoft technologies are, now, a standard. Please, let
Microsoft to continue use its holy right to innovate.
SALUDOS desde Mexico!
A. David Garza Marin (MSDN RD)
Director General de PRO-3
adgarza arroba pro guin 3 punto com punto mx
adgarza at pro dash 3 dot com dot mx
http://www.pro-3.com.mx
MTC-00023181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis of the
proposed settlement (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html) and support modifications as indicated therein.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Baran
Milwaukee, WI
Principal Engineer
Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
MTC-00023182
From: Gary Bodily
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think this thing with Microsoft has gone on long enough. Let's just drop
it and let the company get back to business and creating jobs and helping
the economy
Sincerely,
Gary Bodily
2295 Kalinda Dr.
Sandy UT 84092
MTC-00023183
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:07pm
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,
Morgan Hendrickson
1796 Kent Circle
Papillion, NE 68046-4118
[[Page 27279]]
MTC-00023184
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:06pm
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,
Kathryn Bell
4326 Gum Branch Road
Jacksonville, NC 28540
MTC-00023185
From: Miller, Burton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
government attourneys:
the settlement under consideration fails almost completely in every way.
first of all, in addressing the problem of anti-competitive behavior, the
settlement hardly restricts microsoft at all. most of the clauses will be
easy to get around or ignore, and very hard to prove in the case of
transgression. judge jackson had it right; splitting microsoft into
separate sofware and operating system companies would have a much greater
and positive impact.
secondly, concerning the damages. $1 billion is a drop in the bucket to
microsoft, who has $40 billion in cash. punitive measures should be
punitive. furthermore, allowing them to pay in kind undermines the already
frivolous damages, while simulatneously allowing them to gain unfair market
share in the very act of being punished. all damages should be paid in
cash, and the amount should be enough to sting a bit, say $20 billion (half
their cash reserves). furthermore, the money from the damages should be
prohibited from use to purchase microsoft products; this is only fair, as
microsoft has many years of unfair advantage under their belts, and all
software/hardware purchased with these funds should go to even the scales.
the money could be used both for educational purposes, and to fund non-
microsoft affiliated high-tech startups (since they destroyed so many of
them).
really, though, why settle at all. let the case go to the supreme court.
let's see if america can do the right thing for once, or if it will allow
legalistic maneuver to undermine justice on the grandest possible scale.
theodore roosevelt would turn over in his grave if he saw the travesty that
our legal system has become.
burton miller
MTC-00023186
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:08pm
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,
John Murphy
2201 168th Ave. NE
Bellevue, WA 98008-2432
MTC-00023187
From: Jennifer Shively
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the tentative Microsoft Settlement is not acceptable, as it
allows too many exclusionary practices to continue.
Jennifer Shively
Pasadena, California 91030
MTC-00023188
From: Frazao, Celso
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge Kollar-Kotelly Re: Comments on Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment
Date: 24 Jan 2002
From: Celso Frazao
587 Center Dr.,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
I am a computer scientist active in my field for over 30 years. I am
familiar with the software industry in general, and Microsoft's product
line in particular, including its operating systems, browsers and other
tools and applications. I am also familiar with similar products marketed
by many of Microsoft's competitors. I have read the Proposed Final Judgment
(PFJ) and numerous published articles and reports on the topic.
In my opinion the PFJ is flawed on many counts:
*It does not effectively address or correct Microsoft's illegal practices.
*It does not deny Microsoft the fruits of its ill-gotten gains.
*It does not impose any punitive damages.
*It does not adequately compensate those adversely affected by its past
misconduct.
*It does not prevent future recurrence of anticompetitive behaviors.
*It does not do enough to restore competition and offer real choice to
consumers.
*It has no effective enforcement.
*Its duration is too short.
The PFJ has no teeth and no real penalties for non-compliance. It relies
too heavily on Microsoft's voluntary compliance, cooperation, self-control
and good faith. It also leaves the interpretation of key elements of the
agreement in the hands of the defendant itself. If past experience is any
guide, only a fool would trust Microsoft to abide by such an agreement,
because it is by necessity unfavorable to Microsoft and it provides little
incentive to comply. This PFJ leaves the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
Moreover, sufficient time is needed to restore fair competition to the
marketplace, to level the playing field and ensure that it remains level.
Removing all restraints after 5 years, even for an otherwise fair
settlement, is grossly inadequate.
If allowed to take effect, the PFJ would do little to remedy the current
situation, and be an utter disservice to consumers and Microsoft
competitors. It would be a farce and travesty of justice.
Respectfully yours,
Celso J. Frazao
[email protected]
Palo Alto, CA.
CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov''
MTC-00023189
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:14pm
Subject: microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr.Ashcroft, I feel the MSFT settlement was fair and just for the
people of the United States of America which both MSFT the consumer and
public have paid a dear price in time, money, personel and lives; had we as
a nation watched less of our own and more about what forieners were
plotining against the United States the twin tower would still be standing
along with 3000 lives not to mention the families these people touched.
Once again in the news is Aol whitch new and understood what the netscape
broser was and the risk of a 10 Billion dollar purchase.''
Elephant.'' The trial was going on during the time of the purchase and
the insiders thought they new netscape would control the market after MSFT
lost because that did not happen netscape has filed a suit which I personal
think is without merit and sould be throw out . We as a nation sould be
very thankful for the creativity and jobs that Microsoft started and can
only hope that the continued sucess will bring ever greater rewards to this
country. Mr. Ashcroft I hope and pray that the settlement stand because it
was fair and just for all. God bless. Sincerely
Peter J. Borrello 413-731-2303
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023190
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27280]]
Date: 1/24/02 7:11pm
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,
LUCILLE FRICKE
7 WAGON TRAIL
BLACK MOUNTAIN, NC 28711-2555
MTC-00023191
From: Warren or Nancy Dodson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
Dear DOJ,
Please, just drop this suit against Microsoft. It is costly. It is
selective against a respectable and legal US corporation.
Further more this present recession really started into a nosedive when
President Clinton began this suit.
Thank you, President Clinton. The biggest monopoly of all is the Federal
Government. Some one should investigate IT.
Please just quit this.
Thank you. Warren E. Dodson, West Liberty, Ohio
MTC-00023192
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:11pm
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,
MARILYN DIANE FRY
P.O. BOX 238
MACKINAW CITY, MI 49701-0238
MTC-00023193
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:12pm
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,
DONAL MILLER
2762 TONY DRIVE
LAWERNCEVILLE, GA 30044-5775
MTC-00023194
From: BRIAN LEJEUNE
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 6:59pm
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,
Brian LeJeune
MTC-00023195
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:12pm
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 Eklund
2440 Green Canyon Rd.
Fallbrook, CA 92028
MTC-00023196
From: Bob Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:15pm
Subject: Stop the Harasement of Microsoft
Dear Sirs/Madames:
I am writing to express my strong objection to the US Governments continued
waste of time and money harassing Microsoft.
I don't know that I find all of their business tactics honorable but I
strongly beleive this case is much more about competitors trying to ask for
help as opposed to the Government protecting consumers.
I watch in amazement as other operating systems companies such as Apple
release new verisons of their operating system with addiitonal free
software bundled in (iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, etc)and they are applauded for
bringing more features, convenience and benefit to users. At the same time
is chastised and sued for trying to deliver the very same types of advances
and benefits to consumers.
As a citizen of this country I am appaled at the blatant manipulation of
the US Government by Microsoft's competitors.
Sincerely;
Bob Roberts
MTC-00023197
From: Chris Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe that there is a period of time whereby the Department of Justice
accepts public commentary regarding the Microsoft settlement case. I am
writing regarding that matter.
I am an average jane working in the educational IT industry, and I feel
very strongly that Microsoft's dominance in the
[[Page 27281]]
operating system, office suite, and internet browser business represents a
clear threat to competition from any other company. I am strongly opposed
to any sort of settlement that allows Microsoft to maintain this position.
This country is founded on fair competition and it is ludicrous to think
that any other company, even giants like IBM or AOL Time Warner, can edge
into any of those three categories successfully. At the University where I
work, use of the Netscape browser has declined in the last year to just 6%.
People who are not very adept with software and computer technology often
don't realize that they even have a choice! I speak with students every day
who believe that getting onto the internet can only be done with Internet
Explorer because that was what showed up on their desktop the first time
they booted up a computer!
Microsoft exemplifies a monopoly. I hope the Department of Justice will not
allow Microsoft to weasel its way out of restructuring.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Regards,
Chris Collins
1820 Sterling Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45239
MTC-00023198
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:13pm
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,
Geo R. BARTH
3343 se 17TH ave
Cape Coral, FL 33904-4462
MTC-00023199
From: Steve Zygmunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally feel that the current settlement offer for the Microsoft Anti-
Trust case is a complete joke. I am absolutely NOT in favor of the current
settlement as it does little to nothing to curb the predatory practices of
Microsoft. Imposing far more demanding restricitons/penalties will be far
more helpful to the computer industry as a whole in the future. Having
Micorsoft as a monopoly(which it is by the courts own ruling) is not only
dangerous to the growth and innovation of the computer industry but is also
fundamentally dangerous to the United States should Microsoft suddenly fail
due to attack, mismanagement, or otherwise.
Steve Zygmunt
State College, PA
MTC-00023200
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:14pm
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 Mellinger
5 Carroll Circle
Mabelvale,, AR 72103
MTC-00023201
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:15pm
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,
Anthony Justiniano
61 hillcrest street
staten island , NY 10308
MTC-00023202
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:15pm
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,
Joseph Lobosco
50 E Hamilton Ave.
Massapequa, NY 11758
MTC-00023203
From: dmiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:20pm
Subject: Micrsoft Anti Trust Tunney Act
I think the proposed settlement is a horrible idea because it allows the
software monopoly to tighten its grip in some key areas, see http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/ for deails.
MTC-00023204
From: Valerie Kapko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am voicing my opinion in agreement with the following statements made by
my associate Jim Lucha regarding Microsoft. Mr. Lucha states:
I am writing to inform you of a great injustice taking place, that left
unchecked by good citizens such as myself, will sacrifice freedom for me
and future generations.
On November 5, 1999, a U.S. Court found Microsoft guilty of abusing its
monopoly. An appeals court upheld that decision.
This past November, the DOJ and Microsoft came to a settlement that appears
to have been written by Microsoft, and are not in the best interest of you,
the consumer and citizen.
The Department of Justice, the President, and Microsoft are using the
tragic events of September 11th to sweep this case under the rug.
1. Microsoft overcharges for its products. Its rate of return on
investments is 88%, far above the largest corporations in other industries.
For the others 13% is considered quite good. Microsoft is holding
approximately 35 billion of your money in cash to further it's bullying of
the computer industry. This is illegally obtained money.
Remember their overcharging is passed on to you the consumer and taxpayer.
Virtually every single product you purchased, the
[[Page 27282]]
producer overpaid for computer software and had to pass that cost on to
you. The government also overpaid for software with your tax dollars.
2. Microsoft forced computer manufacturers into illegal contracts
prohibiting them from including alternative software and operating systems
as choices. While the antitrust trial focused on the software aspects with
Netscape the prime example, it did not address the issue of alternative
operating systems.
It is my opinion that Microsoft's anticompetitive practices in this area
alone have set the computing world back approximately ten years. I often
hear from people ``Why aren't computers easier to use.'' or
``When will I be able to talk to my computer and tell it what to
do.'' Well, Windows 2000 is only now approaching the level of
stability that was available in 1994 with IBM's OS/2. Also, in version 4 of
IBM's OS/2, released approximately in 1997, voice recognition was
introduced, and you could speak commands to your computer. A feature that
to this day is not available in a Microsoft operating system.
3. Microsoft developed a web site for the British government for use by its
citizens for taxes. The site is only useable by people using Microsoft's
Internet Explorer on its Windows operating system. Not even people using
Internet Explorer on the Macintosh platform could use the web site let
alone people using alternative web browsers such as Netscape and Opera.
4. In Australia, Microsoft rents its software products rather than sell
them. The consumer must pay every couple of years or stop using the
product. If they don't renew, then they are only allowed to view their
current documents. They can no longer edit them in any way. Microsoft
wanted to implement the software rental here in the U.S., but changed their
mind due to the then current antitrust case. Consumers will have no choice
in the next couple of years.
5. What message are we giving our future generations if we do nothing to
convicted criminals and businesses?
WHY THE SETTLEMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE
1. First and foremost, the settlement does not address ill-gotten gains.
Microsoft is allowed to keep billions of dollars acquired illegally. How
many convicted thieves are you aware of that were allowed to keep their
stolen goods?
2. The settlement creates a 3 person panel to make sure Microsoft does not
continue its current illegal practices. The first problem is Microsoft gets
to select one member of the panel, who in turn has a say as to who the
third member is. Microsoft basically controls the panel. The second problem
is that the panel members are not allowed to discuss with anyone except the
DOJ. If Microsoft is in any violation, the public may never know.
3. No punishment for the executives of Microsoft that knowingly and
willingly led their company into law breaking actions.
4. While the API's (programming interfaces) used to communicate with the
operating system will be documented and released, it will only be done for
companies and business that Microsoft deems have a viable business. The
Free Software movement has been acknowledged by Microsoft to be its biggest
competition, yet they have publicly stated that businesses with a basis in
Free Software don't have a viable business model. So, their toughest
competition is excluded from the API's to begin with.
5. The duration of the restrictions is between 5 to 7 years, which is not a
significant amount of time to reverse the detrimental damage caused by
Microsoft. Also, if Microsoft is found to be in violation, there is no
extension to the duration.
6. The settlement is full of loopholes for Microsoft to take advantage of.
Remember that Microsoft has been found guilty in previous court hearings,
and used the loopholes contained within those settlements to render them
useless.
7. The settlement does not address the file formats used by Microsoft's
Office programs. With each new version of Microsoft's office suite
programs, they change the format of the documents created. This creates a
barrier to entry for competing office software. It is also a means to force
current customers in a never ending upgrade cycle, where they purchase the
upgrade to be able to read the files sent to them by others, even though
they themselves do not need the added features of the newer version.
Computer Economics estimated the economic impact of malicious computer code
for the year 2001 as $13.2 billion dollars. In 1995, prior to Microsoft's
Monopoly, the impact was 1/2 a billion. There has been a steady economic
drain year after year. While the costs include all malicious computer code,
virtually all were due to Microsoft specific software. The virii that
caused that damaged were classified by security experts as lower risk,
basically meaning they did not destroy data. There are security experts
that have predicted that if a cyber-terrorist attacks with a destructive
computer virus, the economic impact will be devastating. It is this reason
why the National Security Agency has recommended government agencies to
adopt other server software.
I do not feel the Microsoft anti-trust settlement is in the consumer's best
interest.
Valerie S. Kapko-Roots
Managed Care Coordinator
San Bernardino Medical Group
Phone: (909) 883-8611, Ext. 2328
Fax: (909) 886-1798
E-Mail: [email protected]
MTC-00023205
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:17pm
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,
John Lobosco
50 E Hamilton Ave.
Massapequa, NY 11758
MTC-00023206
From: Herb Woodruff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the
rosoft 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,
Herb Woodruff
MTC-00023207
From: Patrick McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:19pm
Subject: Will you let consumers down again?
To whom this may concern,
I just can't believe how the DoJ was ready to let Microsoft off the hook so
easily, and above all, so conveniently for the company. The proposed
settlement looked so much like it was politically motivated, that it raises
serious doubts as to the DoJ's competence, nay its integrity. After all,
you yourselves found M$ guilty of abusing monopoly power, and M$ repeatedly
lied to you in court. So the sentence better fit the crime . . .
or no-one will take the DoJ seriously again, which spells trouble in a
democracy (now here's thought).
[[Page 27283]]
Give Microsoft the break they ask for, and they'll be back in no time doing
what they do best, i.e. being a brutal and abusive monopolist. And expect
them to be back at it with a vengeance. For M$ will have been reminded that
strangling competitors using a combination of legal and illegal means is a
hugely worthwhile and profitable enterprise. Unless the price to pay for
this kind of behavior is heavy enough to deter any corporation (even giants
like M$), you (the DoJ) and all of us citizen will have been a laughably
short interlude in the life of an unrepentant and all-powerful monopolist.
In the name of many consumers from the US and abroad, who think that the
DoJ might be our last hope to force Microshaft to play by the rules, please
don't let us down... again.
Pat McDonald
Patrick P. McDonald, PhD
Ass. Prof. of Immunology
Pulmonary Division,
Universit de Sherbrooke
Centre de recherche clinique
3001, 12e avenue Nord, piace 4849
Sherbrooke, Qc J1H 5N4
Canada
tel 819-346-1110 x14849
fax 819-564-5377
email [email protected]
MTC-00023208
From: gary nader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:22pm
Subject: I think there should be something do about it.The TEC.sector is to
one-sided.Microsoft tells me what
I think there should be something do about it.The TEC.sector is to one-
sided.Microsoft tells me what I see. And tells oems what they are aloud to
sell with their computers. Microsoft is going to get bigger and bigger.They
have complete control over the computers.And it scars me it might be the
USA.
Thanks Gary Nader
MTC-00023209
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:19pm
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,
Eugene Gonzales
1726 Manor Drive
Hillsborough, CA 94010
MTC-00023210
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:20pm
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,
Ronald Villanova
272 Shenipsit Lake Rd
Tolland, CT 06084
MTC-00023211
From: Carole E. Mah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a mere slap on the wrist, and
will allow anti-competitive practices by Microsoft continue unabated.
This settlement/final judgment should not be adopted until its weekness are
well addressed. I am sure you are familiar with the well-composed list
here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
Don't let down users, businesses, and competitors by ignoring problems.
Thank you,
--carole
Carole E. Mah [email protected]
Senior Programmer/Analyst
Brown University Scholarly Technology Group
phn 401-863-2669
fax 401-863-9313
http://www.stg.brown.edu/
personal: http://www.stg.brown.edu/carolem/
MTC-00023212
From: Douglas Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Hello,
My name is Douglas Smith. I am a software developer for TeraTech, a company
in Rockvile, Maryland. I firmly believe that the Proposed Final Judgement
(PFJ) against Microsoft is weak and not in the public's interest. This is
especially true in the section of the PFJ that has to do with defining the
Windows Operating System. Any current and future operating systems designed
by Microsoft that use any part of the Win32 API should be covered, since
that is the core of the operating system, and the core of what defines the
term ``Windows compatible software.''
Definition U: ``Windows Operating System Product''
Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems. Yet the PFJ
in definition U defines a ``Windows Operating System Product'' to
mean only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP
Professional, and their successors. This purposely excludes the Intel-
compatible operating systems Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE;
many applications written to the Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows
2000, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and Windows CE, and with minor
recompilation, can also be run on Pocket PC.
Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/
tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The Tablet PC is the next-generation mobile
business PC, and it will be available from leading computer makers in the
second half of 2002. The Tablet PC runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition and features the capabilities of current business laptops,
including attached or detachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-
based applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by Windows Microsoft is
clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Pocket PC in places (e.g.
portable computers used by businessmen) currently served by Windows XP Home
Edition, and thus appears to be trying to evade the Final Judgment's
provisions. This is but one example of how Microsoft can evade the
provisions of the Final Judgment by shifting its efforts away from the
Operating Systems listed in Definition U and towards Windows XP Tablet
Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating
System that can run Windows applications.
Definition U currently reads:
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.
Definition U should be amended to read
U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' means any software or
firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that is
[[Page 27284]]
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.
Douglas M. Smith--Application Architect
TeraTech--Tools for Programmers(tm)
[email protected]
MTC-00023213
From: Niki Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to recommend that the Department of Justice, in the Tunney
Review process of the Microsoft Antitrust case, approve the settlement.
Actually, I would like to see a settlement more favorable to Microsoft. The
Department of Justice has spent way too much money pursuing this non-threat
to the consumer at the consumer/taxpayer's expense.
A much bigger threat to the public, software consumers and non-consumers
alike, is the giant conglomerate AOL Time Warner. The collection of Books,
TV News Channels, Entertainment TV Channels, Cable, Web content sites, Web
browsers, and who know what else, in the hands of one corporation is a
threat. Books can be hyped as good by their own reviewers, and the word
spread by news, TV, and web sites. Books published by others will be
handicapped in competing for movie right bids. But, the most frightening,
is the serious censoring power when one corporation owns so many sources of
news. Even if news is not squelched, it could be slanted by multiple
sources that make it sound true. Movie studios were prevented from owning
theaters under anti-trust. This big conglomerate is much, much worse.
Nicola S. Hansen
(registered voter over 21)
Reno, Nevada 89509
MTC-00023214
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:20pm
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,
Gilbert Martin
644 SW 144th Place
Seattle, WA 98166-1574
MTC-00023215
From: Allan Kalar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my considered opinion that the marketplace should be the ``great
leveler'' in the case of Microsoft. Using the courts to stifle honest
competition or to punish success is a sure way to destroy this country.
Microsoft's Windows is far from a monopoly. Linux is making great strides
against Windows because of it's greater reliability, lower cost/per seat
(especially for Internet Servers), and the fact that it's considerably more
secure. Also, many versions of Linux come bundled with very powerful
software that costs extra with Windows.
Let competition rule. If Microsoft wants to compete against Linux, it will
have to improve Windows considerably and lower the cost/per seat. Isn't
that what we're supposed to be doing?
Allan Kalar
[email protected]
PO Box 1975
Elma, WA 98541
MTC-00023216
From: fred smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Gentlepersons:
As a computer professional I wish to make known to you my DISapproval of
the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. This
is a case in which a huge company has been found guilty of illegal
monopolistic practices. The penalties for such practice should be real
penalties. It is my belief that the PFJ not only proposes no meaningful
penalities, it allows Microsoft to continue to practice business in much
the same way as in the past.
I am not a legal scholar, I cannot give you a scholarly argument, so
therefore I wish to refer you to many excellent arguments made publicly, on
the Web, by others more knowledgeable than I. Also, please note that I have
willingly added my name to the list of signers to the ``open
letter'' that will be sent to you by Dan Kegel (http://www.kegel.com/
remedy).
Mr. Kegel's web site has many excellent discussions of this Microsoft case
and the PFJ. There are also a number of links to many other articles/open
letters/arguments/discussions on the subject, many of them by well-known
and respected people. I specifically refer you to (and urge you to read)
the following:
--http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/4020/1/ An interview
with Judge Robert H. Bork.
-- http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/015/business/
Microsoft--case--key--to--tech--s--future+.sht
ml An article by the Attorney General of Massachusetts
--http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html Ralph
Nader's open letter
--http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html Analysis
by the Computer and Communications Industry Association Other important
links are:
--http://www.procompetition.org/market/settlement/BorkLetter.html A
letter from Robert H. Bork
--http://www.procompetition.org/market/settlement/BarksdaleLetter.html
A letter from James Barksdale
While the opinions of the authors of these (and other) articles are not
necessarily identical to my own opinions, they do point out many problems
with the PFJ, and do so much more eloquently than I could.
But the thrust of my argument (and theirs) is this:
1) the PFJ does not provide any meaningful penalties for past violations of
anti-trust law.
2) the PFJ provides too little relief from Microsoft's monopolistic
behavior.
3) The PFJ gives Microsoft far too much power to decide to whom they will
release API (and other) documentation and too many ways to weasel out of
releasing such documentation.
4) The PFJ specifically does not include any allowance for software or
operating systems which compete with Microsoft but which are not supported
or owned by a commercial entity. The major competition to Microsoft in the
operating system arena, currently, is exactly that, and there is no
provision in the PFJ to prevent Microsoft from doing anything they want to
squash that competition. This type of software is often referred to as
``Open Source'' or ``Free Software''.
5) the commission mandated by the PFJ to oversee Microsoft's compliance is
essentially powerless.
Microsoft has shown themselves in the past to be willing to essentially
ignore consent agreements, and to work through loopholes in consent
agreements. Also, Microsoft has shown no remorse or obvious willingness to
change their business practices. We need a judgement that has REAL
penalties and the teeth necessry to enforce them. This PFJ has neither. I
urge you to please review the arguments above, especially the links given
(as well as many others not shown here) to other excellent discussions and
arguments on the case, and having done so to then rule that this Proposed
Final Judgement is not a suitable remedy for the crimes of which the
defendent has been convicted.
Sincerely,
Frederick C. Smith
20 Whipple Ave.
Stoneham, MA 02180
[email protected]
MTC-00023217
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
At one time, the Bell System was the best communications system in the
world.
[[Page 27285]]
If the U. S. government had not interfered, there's no telling what
improvements we would have seen by now.
Don't let the same thing happen to Microsoft. Stop the court action now, do
not help AOL, Time, Warner in their quest to get unjust compensation on the
back of an unjust action in the first place.
T.E. Taylor
3137 W. Country Gables Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85053-4827
MTC-00023218
From: Dave Nathanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I feel strongly that Microsoft has run their business in an unfair &
uncompetitave manner, at the expense of the general public. THey have run
rough shod over the hopes, dreams, and rights of the people and companies
who are or were their comptitors.
To allow them the fantastic opportunity to dominate the educational market
with a degree thaty they must give a bunch of computer software &
hardware--all valued at retail prices, is absurd. It will benefit M$
rather than punish them for their unfair business practices.
Best,
Dave Nathanson
Mac Medix
MTC-00023219
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:23pm
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 Fry
229 Southport Dr
Newton, KS 67114-5429
MTC-00023220
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:27pm
Subject: Anti--Trust Case
United States of America
Department Of Justice:
The purpose of this message is to express my strong support for Microsoft,
and urge appropriate steps be taken to achieve fast closeure of all pending
Anti-Trust cases against Microsoft. This should be accomplished without
further restrictions, actions or changes in the structure of the company.
The corrective actions already taken by your department, along with world
wide competition and fast changing technology, will quickly eliminate any
still existing problems. It makes absolutely no sense to damage an American
Corporation to solve correctable problems between American Companies. It
can have a very negative impact on the American economy and it opens a much
too wide door to foreign competitors.
Thank you,
M.J. Jensen
13447 W Gable Hill Dr.
Sun City West, AZ 85375
MTC-00023221
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:25pm
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,
Jackie Kelton
815 Country Club Drive
Unit E
Libertyville, IL 60048
MTC-00023222
From: Matthew McNeil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this because I think the proposed settlement over the
Microsoft case is a bad idea. I believe Microsoft has painted themselves to
be a friend to the American consumer and a crusader of technological
advancement. Many ignorantly believe this view of Microsoft, and support
such a weak settlement.
I however, am in support of a much more suitable settlement, which fairly
punishes a company whose business practices are nothing short of
deplorable. Please consider this and other such opinions before settling
with Microsoft.
I am a Chemistry graduate student at Idaho State University.
Sincerely,
Matthew McNeil
MTC-00023224
From: Howard Kim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:29pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I find the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case to be not a
settlement in the public interest. It pains me to see Microsoft abuse it's
monopoly power, and claiming they are doing it for the advancement of
technology and business, but in fact ruining the entire technology industry
for me and those who are not blind to their abuses.
Without rehashing the evidence pointed out during the trial, Microsoft's
monopoly position threatens to control the foundations of technology
itself. Since Windows is a ``required'' operating system, and
since it is a proprietary one at that, Microsoft is leveraging that desktop
ubiquity to take over the internet as we know it with their .NET strategy.
Using their Passport system gives the keys of identity to Microsoft, a
corporation, serving their own bottom line, not the public interest. Other
products and APIs are forced on people's computers because they dictate it
as such. Those that conflict with Microsoft are shut out entirely. Their
DirectX API for example essentially forces game and multimedia developers
to depend on fundamental and yet proprietary Microsoft technology for their
livelihood, and as such they are tied to the Windows platform.
The same will happen with other fundamental APIs like security and identity
(Passport), web services (.NET), etc.
Even our great government is shackled by Microsoft's proprietary and closed
products. Why should our tax dollars be spent on products which are
controlled by a corporation, especially something as fundamental as
computer software? Our public government should be advocating open source
software and encourage their use since it serves the public interest, not
the pockets of a monopoly. The remedies in the proposed settlement do not
address open source development. Non-profit organizations such as the
Apache group and communities of developers put out seemingly the few
successful competitive products to break the Microsoft hegemony.
I believe the government should advocate more software development in the
public interest, and as such remedy the settlement to stop Microsoft from
abusing their monopoly power, and also provide mechanisms to foster further
growth in open source development.
I hesitated in writing my opinion on this matter for a long time. Perhaps I
was afraid of being ``marked'', but this is too important to
remain silent. The Tunney act allows us, the public, to voice our opinions.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue their abuse, our industry will stagnate
and be under the total control of a corporation. Many make jokes about
Microsoft as ``Big Brother'', but we approach that as a reality
everyday. It makes me want to quit the technology industry--how
discouraging is that?
Howard Kim
Software Developer
[[Page 27286]]
Brooklyn, NY
MTC-00023225
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:26pm
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,
Elnora Reid
205 Hilton Ave.
Catonsville, MD 21228-5729
MTC-00023226
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:26pm
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,
Sallie Gardner
7417--165th Ave. N.E.
Forest Lake, MN 55025
MTC-00023227
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:26pm
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,
Bob Thompson
P O Box 1656
Willits, CA 95490
MTC-00023228
From: Mitchell Lifton (060)ml26(a)umail.umd.edu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does nothing to alleviate, cure,or otherwise
restrict Microsoft's rapacious, aggressive and continuous
attempts--largely successful, alas--to control most areas of
commonly used software. It essentially guts the proceedings brought against
the most egregious monopoly since Andrew Carnegie et al were thundering
through the American economic landscape. I urge the court to reject the
settlement.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Lifton
Professor
New Media, Digital Narration
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
MTC-00023229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to difinitively settle the Microsoft case. It has been proven
that Microsoft has given the consumer the best value. Other companies could
have come up with other highly competetive software if they had the
intelligence to do so. They were not blocked in any way to develop their
own more competitive products. AOL is now planning litigation which is
untimely and clearly meant to undermine efforts at settlement. It will be
costly to the consumer and not in the public best interest.
MTC-00023230
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:27pm
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,
Joe Haynes
10012 130th Lane North
Seminole, FL 33776-1709
MTC-00023231
From: Rick Runowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like a chance to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I
agree with Dan Kegl's web site [ www.kegel.com/remedy/ ] in most
aspects and believe it should be seriously considered before finalizing
this Settlement.
I have been working in the computer industry for almost 10 years now. I am
also a computer science student attending Oklahoma State University. I
primarily run Linux at home, and use Microsoft Windows NT, 2000, 98, Me and
Unix at work and at school. I work at a major computer component
manufacturer as a supervisor, and have experience in supporting multiple
operating systems.
Some points that I would like to emphasize: [www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html]
``PFJ Section II: Prohibited Conduct
J. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to do with
security or copy protection.'' If Microsoft is allowed to continue to
keep their security flaws from the public, how are we supposed to know how
to defend our systems. Microsoft's OS has a history of insecurity, and
Microsoft has made a point to deal with security issues as public relation
problems. In order to refute this claim Mr. Gates made a press release
stating that Microsoft would focus on security, and make it the
``highest priority''.[ http://slashdot.org/article.pl'sid=02/
01/17/0259234&mode=thread ] This clearly suggests that they will, in
the future, continue to treat security flaws and issues and a public
relations problem.
``PFJ Section VI: Definitions
A. ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined as only
the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows,
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.'' APIs
cannot be limited to ``Middleware''. All Microsoft API's that are
used for non-OS functions should be clearly outlined and documented for
alternate program vendors to use. Anything otherwise will give (and has
given) Microsoft a competitive edge against program vendors. Please note
that I'm not suggesting Microsoft
[[Page 27287]]
be forced to give away the APIs used solely for the design and
implementation of their OS. Only those that are used to create non-OS
software.
This final point does however create a problem of defining OS software and
non-OS software. An operating system is defined as a program that lies
between the user and the hardware. The Operating System should then be
limited to that which is required for the user to interface with the
hardware. This would explicitly leave out Media Player, Outlook, Internet
Explorer, and many other programs Microsoft has not yet begun to capitalize
on by including it in their ``OS''.
These are only two of many oversights in the proposed Settlement. Please
carefully reconsider your position and rewrite this agreement to be more
specific and binding. If there are any questions regarding this mail feel
free to contact me using any of the information below.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Rick Runowski
11103 N. Chatburn Ln.
Stillwater Ok. 74075
(405) 410-1425 Cellular
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,senator@nickl
es.se...
MTC-00023232
From: Bradley K. Tober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The monopoly that is Microsoft poses a severe threat to the system of
economy in America. Microsoft's actions have all but completely wiped out
any type of competition, which is a fundamental aspect of the Free
Enterprise System. Corporations such as Apple Computer, Inc. have suffered
heavily from the lies and deceit of Microsoft. Without Apple, Microsoft
would not exist today, as their entire business is based on intellectual
property stolen from Apple over 15 years ago. At one time, Apple was a
great personal computer manufacturer, and while they still are, they have
lost a huge portion of market share due to Microsoft's destructive
practices. Any settlement including measures requiring Microsoft to donate
money and/or product to suitable organizations will only extend their
monopoly and further destroy their competition.
I believe that any settlement to the anti-trust case must involve Microsoft
supporting their own competition. Microsoft should be forced to pay
continued damages to its competition, such as companies like Apple. This
will result in the growth of competition for Microsoft, and eventually even
out the market share in the technology sector.
Whatever is chosen in this case, it must be something that will be damaging
to Microsoft. You must fight fire with fire.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully yours,
Bradley K. Tober
[email protected]
MTC-00023233
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:28pm
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,
Jan Buckman
8445 Ranchita Way
Fair Oaks, CA 95628-6122
MTC-00023234
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:28pm
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,
Donmette Hennigar
1631 Riverview Rd
Apt 504
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-4361
MTC-00023235
From: Gerry Panganiban
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea.
Gerry Panganiban
San Jose, CA
MTC-00023236
From: Wm D Loughman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm in total disagreement with the proposed Microsoft
``settlement''. It does not begin to address the harm already
done by Microsoft, to consumers and ``the industry'' itself. It's
a teensy slap on the wrist; an encouragement actually for Microsoft to
continue its illegal practices.
WD ``Bill'' Loughman, PhD--Berkeley, California USA
[email protected]
MTC-00023237
From: Robert Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:32pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed Final Judgement
This email is in regards to the proposed Final Judgement against Microsoft.
I have waited this long to comment to make sure I understand the impact of
the proposed solution in light of the changing landscape of technology,
business, and the law.
To give you my background, I have been a professional programmer for seven
years. I have worked in internet related business, scientific software
production, IT for a financial institution, and Bioinformatics at UCLA.
During my contact with computers, starting in early 1980 at a young age, I
have used about every modern operating system and programming tool
available in the last decade. Although I don't have and formal legal
training, it has overlapped with my computer and business studies on
numerous occation.
From this perspective, I have become very nervous about the results of the
proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. The most pressing concern is
that non-profit computer projects are not included in the judgement. Most
authorities consider software such as Linux, Apache, etc. to be the only
real threat to Microsoft in the marketplace. Yet there is no provision in
the FJ to get information about ``Disclosure of APIs, Communications
Interfaces and Technical Information.'' (Section III(D)) out to the
developers that are creating the above software. If this isn't corrected,
the FJ will have no positive effect on Microsoft's practices, or the makeup
of the computer market.
In order for the Open Source community to gain any ground due to this
judgement, all information about MS interfaces needs to be freely available
to the public in an easily accessible place. This should have no negative
affect on Microsoft beyond the intention of the FJ and will add OS
developers to the list of people who can produce software for, as well as
interfacing with, MS products. Also of concern is the definition of
``Middleware'' in the FJ. Whatever the final definition, it
should encompass any interface that may reasonably be used to interface
with MS products.
Thank you for your time.
Robert Burke
Santa Monica, California
Programmer, UCLA
MTC-00023238
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:30pm
[[Page 27288]]
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,
Celia Williams
16650 Longview Dr
Smithfield , VA 23430-6703
MTC-00023239
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:30pm
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,
Brian Hirvela
178 Meserole Ave Apt 4
Brooklyn, NY 11222-2418
MTC-00023240
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:34pm
Subject: U.S. DOJ vs Microsoft
I have submitted comments once before and wish to extend those comments
with these few words:
According to the law as it has been put forth by Congress; any company
created within the boundaries of the United States shall be considered, for
all intents and purposes, an individual will all rights, restrictions, and
abilities which a normal person shall have attained as a member of these
United States. Thus, should one company cause another company to cease to
exist--for whatever reason, then the company which no longer exists
can be said to have been killed by the first company.
My questions are:
1. Is this not murder?
2. Should we, as a nation, encourage, condone, work with, or even aid these
actions?
MTC-00023241
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:32pm
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,
George Edel
6610 Wimbledon Trail
Spring, TX 77379
MTC-00023242
From: Ted Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is a Bad Idea.
-Ted Johnson
MTC-00023244
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:31pm
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,
Roy Hamilton
230 SE 2nd Street
Gresham, OR 97080-7624
MTC-00023245
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:31pm
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,
A. O. Lee LeFort
1328 Clements Rd
Jacksonville, FL 32211-6352
MTC-00023246
From: Arshad Tayyeb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE do not let Microsoft get away with just a slap on the wrist.
Microsoft is destroying competition for computing, and many, many companies
and people have suffered because of it.
The current proposed settlement is NOT OK.
MTC-00023247
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:32pm
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.
[[Page 27289]]
Sincerely,
BEATRICE Mitchell
10428 Echo River Court
Fountain Valley, CA 92708-5923
MTC-00023248
From: bub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
If if was not for Microsoft, I would still be using my Apple II+.
I've spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on PC software that did not
function together. An example is mail-merge. To my knowledge, Microsoft
Office is the only software, even today, in which the word processor
(Word), the spread sheet (Excel), and the data base (Access) work
flawlessly together. As a consequence, MS Office is the only business
program I need today.
Microsoft is the best thing that's happened to this country since sex!
Please do not kill it.
Jon Glahn
1721 9th Street
Camanche, IA 52730
MTC-00023249
From: David Samuels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
It is time for this needless litigation against Microsoft to end. As a
consumer, I am glad that Microsoft continues to innovate and push the
industry to provide better products that work together and meet my growing
needs. The other companies need to either innovate or get out of the way.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on new ideas or better engineering. They
just listen better and deliver to the consumer. My vote is to end this time
wasting, money wasting litigation and let the free market work.
I do not work for Microsoft or have any connection with Microsoft other
than as a consumer of their products. I don't even own stock in Microsoft,
even though I wish I did.
Thanks,
David Samuels
4561 Charlemagne
Plano, TX 75093
972-985-1343
MTC-00023251
From: Phil Dibowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
Dear Whomever it May Concern:
I am writing with regard to the Microsoft Antitrust suits. I would like to
encourage a much harsher penalty for Microsoft that MS's original
``deal.'' Such a sentence where they get to ``pay''
with their own software, which is costing them a few cents per CD and
further securing their hold on the market, is unacceptable.
I would also like to point out that it is impossible to
``monitor'' a corporation like Microsoft. It would not be
feasible to expect anyone to know everything that goes on at such a massive
organization. Instead, restrictions need to be put in place to ensure they
*cannot* commit further violations of the law. A course of action that will
actually affect Microsoft should be agreed upon, and an even worse one in
case they make this mistake again (for example, fees below $1 billion would
not do much harm to them and thus should be avoided).
Lastly, I am in full support of a breakup of the giant. In addition to
discouraging unfair bundling of their software, stock splits and additional
jobs are likely to be results: things we could all use.
Thank you for your time,
Phil Dibowitz
Sr. Systems Administrator
MySmart Solutions
MTC-00023252
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:39pm
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,
Sandy Kremer
815 Hillside Dr. E.
Seattle, WA 98112-5059
MTC-00023253
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:38pm
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,
Norman L. DeForrest
160 Pheasant Run
Kalispell, MT 59901-2778
MTC-00023254
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:39pm
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,
Diann Sigler
6825 Wedgestone Drive
Plano, TX 75023-1072
MTC-00023255
From: Tom Lee Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement!
I don't think the Microsoft settlement is fair to those who try to compete
with them. I equate it to the agreement that Chamberlain made to with the
Nazi German government and saying it was fair to the Polish. It allows
Microsoft to continue what they have been doing before. Is this not what
caused the lawsuite in the first place? The monopolistic practices of
Microsoft to keep others from competing with them.
TomLeeMullins
MTC-00023256
From: Greg Dardis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US DOJ
I would like to record my thoughts on the disasterous lack of courage and
intelligence on the part of the government in respect to Microsoft's
illegal business practices. As a United States citizen I do not blame the
government or the Dept. of Justice in such a difficult case. Blame should
be on the guilty party, not the process, and that party in Microsoft, Inc.
There is no need to debate the culpability of Microsoft. It has already
been ajudicated. What needs to happen is for Microsoft to feel meaningful
sentencing like all who break the law and affect so deeply the lives of
many. It should not be difficult for me to live and work a life using
computers independent of any one company that I feel lacks ethical business
practices.
[[Page 27290]]
Microsoft is no exception to that and it is the job of the courts and DOJ
to allow me that freedom.
Please don't let Microsoft corrupt the free enterprise system that so many
have fought for. Do not let the truth become a victim of the perception
that this is not important anymore. Do not let the years of work of the DOJ
be another victim of Sept. 9th. just because some want to ``move
on.'' This is perhaps the most pervasive and important judgement that
we may have for the economic future of our technical markets for years to
come. Do not let this judgement be a victim of the previous judge's
indescretion.
Microsoft is guilty. Microsoft has shown no remorse or willingness to
change its policies. It deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of
the law. The freedom of the marketplace and Microsoft's position in it will
be just fine.
Thank you,
Greg Dardis
1945 SE Water Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97214
MTC-00023257
From: Charlotte Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:43pm
Subject: Fw: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Original Message
From: ``Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network''
[[email protected]]
To: [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002
12:03 PM
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your comments.
Please review it and make changes to anything that does not represent what
you think. If you received this letter by fax, you can photocopy it onto
your business letterhead; if the letter was emailed, just print it out on
your letterhead. Then sign and fax it to the Attorney General. We believe
that it is essential to let our Attorney General know how important this
issue is to their constituents.
When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
* Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at
1-800-641-2255;
* Email us at [email protected] to confirm that you took
action. If you have any questions, please give us a call at
1-800-965-4376. Thank you for your help in this matter.
The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
For more information, please visit these websites:
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
MTC-00023257 0001
3700 X Street #38
Vancouver, WA 98663-2674
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Microsoft and the Department of Justice have spent more than enough time
hashing out the particulars of the antitrust case in the federal courts.
Three years have gone by already, and it is high time that this suit should
be settled. Unfortunately, even now as a settlement is pending in the
federal courts, Microsoft's competitors and the nine states in which they
have sufficient influence, are seeking to undermine the settlement and
continue litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. ! do not believe
this would serve the best interests of the public, the economy, or the
technology industry.
In November of last year, Microsoft and the Justice Department were able to
reach an agreement that satisfies the demands of justice. Microsoft has
agreed to a variety of terms under the agreement, some of which are
restrictive, and some of which require changes in its products and
procedures. Microsoft has, for example, agreed not to take retaliatory
action against any party that introduces a product into the market that
directly competes with Microsoft software. Microsoft has also agreed to
provide third parties acting under the terms of the settlement with a
license to applicable intellectual property rights, so that they will have
the ability to work within the Windows operating system.
I believe the settlement is fair. I urge you to endorse the finalization of
the settlement as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Martin Perry
MTC-00023257--0002
MTC-00023258
From: Robert Hebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ Settlement
Sirs:
I believe that Microsoft has harmed me by its business practices--past
and present--and that the currently proposed settlement between the
DOJ and Microsoft is not only insufficient to correct the abuses of
Microsoft, it is counterproductive and would be severely damaging to
Microsoft1s competitors (Apple, etc.) and amounts to an advertising coups
for Microsoft in that the schools would be brainwashed with more MS
equipment and software at your direction.
I insist that the damages be paid in cash and at many times the rate
settled-on to date and paid to private consumers, computer soft- and hard-
ware competitors, institutions and schools, and to governments who have all
been harmed by Microsoft1s monopolistic and anticompetitive practices.
Additional severe penalties to correct Microsoft in its business practices
need to be imposed now and in the future in order to provide for fair
competition in the computer hardware, operating system, and program
environments and in the internet access and communications fields.
Sincerely,
Robert J. HEBERT
[[email protected]]
Preston B. HEBERT, CAP (son)
[[email protected]]
Alma SANGER-HEBERT (wife)
[[email protected]]
Amika R. HEBERT, 4H (daughter)
[[email protected]]
5076 South Calle Encina
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650-8972
1-520-803-9919 (home phone & voice messages)
1-520-803-9922 (home phone & voice messages)
1-520-803-9920 (home fax)
1-520-604-6633 (cellular phone)
1-520-458-0888 (work 8am-6pm Mon-Sat)
1-520-458-0999 (work-plain paper fax)
``the Rest of Us''
``...that others may live.''
``Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance.''
3TEAM: Together Everyone Accomplishes More!''
``Rank does not confer privilege or give power;
It imposes responsibility.'' --Peter Drucker--
``Remember... its not just a job, its an adventure.''
MTC-00023259
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:41pm
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,
Audrey Toll
9449 Briar Forest Dr. #3911
Houston, TX 77063
MTC-00023260
From: Benjamin Liberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:45pm
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 comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The
settlement does nothing to solve the problem of monopoly power the software
giant wields. Even if Microsoft does everything required of it by the
settlement (and there is very little
[[Page 27291]]
chance it will, given the settlement's lack of enforcement mechanisms) it
will still have too few restrictions on how it can use its considerable
power. A real settlement must force Microsoft to make space for
alternatives to its dominant software. Complete access to Microsoft's APIs
is necessary to allow other software manufacturers to write software that
will work as well with the Windows family of operating systems as
Microsoft's own software. Microsoft's licensing must also be kept from
quelling competition. Microsoft is now in the same position AT&T was
twenty or so years ago, and should have similar restrictions placed on
it-- ideally the company should have been split into several competing
software firms, but, barring that, it should have restrictions placed on
pricing to allow the competition to catch up with the giant. In the end,
that is what it boils down to--competition. If you do not fight for
competition in the software arena, it will all but disappear. When it does,
our own national security will be at stake, because Microsoft will own the
electronic highway that is becoming more and more vital to the national
economy. Even a benevolent company should not be allowed this
power--and Microsoft has proven itself again and again to be anything
but benevolent.
Thank you,
Benjamin Liberman
Santa Fe, NM
Computer Programmer
Accent Optical Technologies
MTC-
From: Scott San Filippo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe the proposed settlement is fair to consumers or
developers, and I believe that the government has not done enough to punish
Microsoft for the anti-competitive practices. As a software developer, I
believe Microsoft, through its business practices, suppresses competition
and innovation. As a consumer, I believe their practices result in inferior
products.
Scott San Filippo
San Francisco CA
MTC-00023262
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:44pm
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,
Tommy Howe
610 Cypresswood Dr.
Spring, TX 77388
MTC-00023263
From: Peter Wittenberg K2LRC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am happy to hear that Microsoft and the government have reached an
agreement. I think Microsoft has conducted itself appropriately as a
corporate citizen throughout this entire ordeal, and think what they have
agreed to do is fair for all.
If I understand it correctly, Microsoft has agreed to establish a
``Technical Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's compliance
with the settlement and assist with dispute resolution, as well as agreed
to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were
actually at issue in the suit, for the sake of wrapping up the suit, and
has granted computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included
within Windows.
Mr. Ashcroft, this settlement shows the kind of company Microsoft has
always been and that is a company that cares not only about sales, but also
about the consumer's needs and abilities to have access to its innovative
product. I support this settlement, and hope it will be approved at the end
of this comment period.
Sincerely,
Klaus Gormar
MTC-00023264
From: Janet Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
Leave microsoft alone. Why doesn't the DOJ concentrate on Enron .
Punish Ken Lay not Bill Gates. Bruce and Janet Stephenson
MTC-00023265
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:48pm
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,
Nathan Thom
795 Haftez Street NE
Palm Bay, FL 32907
MTC-00023266
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.
Date: 1/24/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft MUST be brought down a significant notch!
I find it HARD to believe that intelligent people do not see the follie in
this dragged-out case. THE US has already decided MS is a monopoly and now
you want to congradulated them as a punishment while the rest of the world
looses innovation left and right.
Innovation in the computer world is AN ENGANGERED LIFEFORM!!!! How can any
small entity compete with this control-freak of a company? All they can do
is be absorbed and innovated technology gets shelved.
YOU (THE US GOVT.) need to do something for the people for a change. You
continue to perpetuate the reality that companies are more important than
individuals...no matter what you belief system is...God or Evolution didn't
create organization...individual were created first.
I resent with such ferocity the crap that gets stuffed down my throat by
Microsoft. PLEASE do something for the people for a change...give us an
environment rich in innovation not a desert.
Bill Daul
3030 Price Ct.
Palo Alto, CA. 94303
USA
650.856.2002
MTC-00023267
From: Bob Goates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft
is very inadequate. It provides little or no punishment for past crimes,
and I suspect the system it proposes to monitor Microsoft's actions will be
easily circumvented.
Also, the duration of settlement agreement will allow Microsoft to be
completely unfettered within at most seven years. Considering the effort
put into this case, the limited duration of the remedy gives Microsoft
little incentive to obey the law in the future.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Goates
1224 Scott Drive
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007
[email protected]
MTC-00023268
From: Eugenia Loli-Queru
[[Page 27292]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53pm
Subject: The Microsoft case
Time is running out, and freedom, whatever the flavor to which you cleave,
is at stake.
Microsoft wants to control people through their software. Today or in the
near future, it will control the people, but within the years, if Microsoft
gets into all kinds of digital equipment (they now want to have their
software on the digital hub in the house, in a PDA, in a mobile phone etc),
it will control the government too. Do not let this happen. Microsoft's
ultimate goal is to create an artificial intelligent software that can spy
and manipulate our personal data. And if FBI or CIA or whatever run
Microsoft products in the future, that sensitive data will also be at
stake. At fist, they will supposedly, work with the authorities or the
government for this, but as the years go by, they will try to use this
information against the authorities. Everyone's freedom is at stake with
M$. Please split the company or make them open source the operating system
and the browser.
Their illegal ways of keeping the monopoly, has resulted my husband lose
his job. His company bailed out for not being able to make their SUPERIOR
opearating system successful, because Microsoft had special NDAed
agreements with OEMs to only install Windows and not other operating
systems. Result: The company bailed out, my husband laid off. No matter how
hard they tried, they could not compete with Microsoft's illegal agreements
with the OEMs. I am talking about this illegal agreement btw: http://
www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/0827--hacker.html
My teacher at college used to say:
``The one who controls the ``information'' is the one true
governer.''
Don't let Microsoft have MY or YOUR ``information''.
Thank you,
Eugenia
Editor-in-Chief at http://www.OSNews.com
Email: [email protected]: 6070904
Home page at http://www.eugenia.co.uk
MTC-00023269
From: Konrad Ko(FFFF)odziejczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement reduce Microsoft's monopol acts.
MTC-00023270
From: James K. Wiggenhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
I am appalled that my government would wash its hands in these procedings.
The courts have ruled that Microsoft *is* a monopoly. Micorosft has and
continues to use its position as a monopoly to fight down the innovators
and to retain its position as a monopoly. As we continue to let Microsoft
have its way, we are endangering our position as true leaders in the
technology world. A real solution to the stifling effect of Microsoft's
illegal monopoly would be something that would keep Microsoft from
continuing its ways.
I have read the settile and accompanying documents. I have also read the
settlement Microsoft signed in the mid-90s. They are very similar. And,
they both have the same effect: Microsoft admits it was a bad citizen and
continues as if it hadn't been caught.
Now, with Microsoft's new initiatives, this dominance and arrogance is even
more threatening. If I buy Windows XP, I am *required* to register with
Microsoft's .net service.... Okay, I am not required to, but I won't be
able to use the software beyond 30 days. Let's say I want to check my stock
portfolio on CNBC's web site. I must join the .net initiative, thereby
giving Microsoft access to much of my financial background (and they
already have my name, address, and phone number from my software
registration. Order a book at a merchant that requires .net authentication?
More information to Microsoft. At some point, Microsoft will know
everything about me. This is scarey. This is the pattern Microsoft has
continually used throughout its lifetime (did you know that when you
reqistered Windows 95 online, you sent a list of the entire contents of
your hard drive to Microsoft?).
Can we trust these people, based on their promise this time they really
will be good? Let's look at past practices and we will see they are not to
be trusted.
Let's try to find a solution that will keep Microsoft from abusing its
position again. And again. And again.
Jim Wiggenhorn
Lebanon, NH
MTC-00023271
From: Barbara Opyt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, the proposed settlement will only increase Microsoft's
monopolistic practices. How about if Microsoft gives millions of dollars
worth of OTHER companies'' products to schools. That might help!
Sincerely,
Barbara Opyt
email: [email protected]
home: 512/248-0698
cell: 512/965-0834
MTC-00023272
From: Edward DeSpain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In Re: Comments on the Microsoft (MS) case--January 24, 2002
Dear Sirs:
1. Anti-trust law is intended to protect consumers and the American people
collectively, it is not supposed to be, first and foremost, a weapon or
shield for competitors.
2. Microsoft is a monopolist, or so it has been adjudged. It is certainly
the owner of the source of monopoly power. Competitive operating systems
are not permitted to easily provide the full technical interface between
computers and programs written to run with Windows. The current Lindows
case is ample evidence that the latent monopoly tendencies are unaffected
by the travails of the past couple of years. MS will yield this power only
as a last resort and will fight every vestige of arbitrariness in any
decisions.
3. The essential source of the MS monopoly power lies in its exclusive
control over access to the Applications Program Interface (API) of the
Windows operating system(s). Everything else MS produces can be readily
supplied by the market. The unique feature of most MS products is their
reliance on, and ability to define, the Windows API.
4. Widespread public access to the API would unleash powerful competitive
alternatives to the MS products, with enhanced features and/or lower
prices. Access to the economic rents emanating from control over the API
would provide strong incentives for competitive software writers, both
extant and potential. Access must be sufficient to allow rival operating
systems providers to include essential functionality to their own products
such that programs that work with Windows operating systems are not
unreasonably precluded from use with other operating systems or other
software..
5. Almost all of the problems arising from the MS monopoly position can be
attenuated by breaking the exclusive MS nexus to the API.
6. Conversely, none of the proposed remedies, other than those aimed at
liberalizing access to the API, directly addresses the root problem.
Breaking up MS leaves control over the API with one of the successor
companies, fines penalize MS stockholders, but leave the source of monopoly
power intact. Most of the other remedies are, at best public relations or,
at worst, a sop to influential rivals. None get at root causes.
7. The enormous administrative and legal costs attending the proposed
remedies would be alleviated if such remedies were left to the market after
freeing access to the API. Economic rents would be quickly competed away
and the innovative forces currently foreclosed to rivals would give birth
to new products from rivals to the MS monolith. The focus of anti-trust
enforcement would be exactly where it belongs and the market would
determine the allocation of benefits and punishment without undue favor.
Both MS and rivals would be subject to market discipline and consumers
would be the ultimate beneficiaries.
8. MS would still be the lead organizer of Windows standards, but the
discipline of the marketplace would force them to be more responsive to the
demands of rivals, partners and, especially, customers. Failure to bend to
these demands would quickly induce competitive alternatives.
Please consider just where the MS market power comes from. Remedy this and
you will go far toward providing an equitable outcome for all. Ignore it
and no other remedy will produce a satisfactory solution.
Thank you,
Edward DeSpain
Economic Data Analysts
5639 Anita St.
[[Page 27293]]
Dallas, TX 75206
[email protected]
MTC-00023273
From: Brian M. Reisman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am constantly bewildered by our government's lack of direction. I
currently use several browsers to peruse the internet and none of them are
Netscape... I currently use Opera quite frequently. I don't use Netscape
because quite frankly it is the worst browser on the market! I continue to
be offended by these companies who can't win in the marketplace and cry
foul. Netscape had the market; at one point over 80% of the internet
browsers were running Netscape. It is foolish to believe that all of those
users stopped using Netscape simply because it wasn't installed by default.
In the days of Windows 3.1, no browser was installed. People still found a
way to obtain the one that they wanted.
If Netscape wanted to keep their users they would have written better
software. Even now, in its latest version Netscape's browser isn't even a
product they created. They are using open source code (Mozilla.org) and
there is almost no difference between Mozilla and Netscape. Why would
people pay for a bad product? Exactly, they wouldn't!
The other day I purchased a cereal box and there was a Lego toy that came
``bundled'' with it; I don't believe Duplo can file a lawsuit for
harm do you? I run Linux and Windows and my linux machine came with
Netscape (Bundled). There is competition for Windows; the competition just
isn't very good. Somehow you find a way to blame Microsoft, please protect
us from terrorists and LEAVE OUR FREE MARKET ALONE!!
Let's keep our eye on the ball!
Registered Voter,
Brian Reisman
MTC-00023274
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:54pm
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,
BILL BOTTLE
6152 N. VERDE TRAIL
SUITE E-217
BOCA RATON, FL 33433-2423
MTC-00023275
From: Erika Fawcett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the current settlement offer between the Department of Justice
and Microsoft is inappropriate and irresponsible. There is no part of it
that inspires confidence in its ability to change Microsoft's business
practices. In fact, the new Windows XP operating system release shows more
of the ``same old story'' from Microsoft. Even their recent
lawsuit against Lindows shows their dedication to driving out competition
with the same ruthlessness they used to drive Be Inc. out of business years
ago.
In a time of an uncertain political climate, uncertain economy and dicey
international relations it is no time to encourage trouble at home by
allowing an illegal monopoly in what has become an exceedingly important
faucet of modern life.
Erika Fawcett
Dance in the Light of the Pale Cold Moon
MTC-00023276
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00023276 0001
28444 Verde Lane
Bonita Springs, FL 34135-6816
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to take this chance to express my support for the settlement
concluded last November between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I
believe Microsoft should be free to focus on their business and not have to
worry about any more litigation. The agreement requires many concessions
from Microsoft regarding their business practices. One example includes
agreeing to design future versions of Windows that will provide a mechanism
to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and software developers to
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. This mechanism will give
consumers the freedom to add or remove access to features built in to
Windows or to non-Microsoft software.
I know there have been concerns that Microsoft won't abide by their
obligations. But these concerns should be alleviated by the creation of a
three-member Technical Committee to monitor Microsoft's practices. This
committee will take any complaints from third parties who feel Microsoft is
not complying with any provision of the settlement. So the agreement is
strong and should continue to be supported by the federal government.
Sincerely,
Joan B.Titus
00023276--0002
MTC-00023277
From: david fowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please take another look at the practices that microsoft is following since
the trial. With the software licensing model, the .net strategy, and the
rush to get more software to market, they are making it more difficult for
companies to compete in the marketplace.
thank you
david fowler
MTC-00023278
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:57pm
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,
Vito Miragliotta
1445 South State Street
Clearfield, UT 84015
MTC-00023279
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:56pm
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,
Lefa Elliott
1131 Whitworth road
[[Page 27294]]
Leitchfield
KY 42754
MTC-00023280
From: Stuart Lamble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:01pm
Subject: The proposed Microsoft settlement
Greetings.
I am a resident of Melbourne, Australia, working for Monash University as a
Unix Systems Administrator. There are a number of valid points that have
been made already by Dan Kegel, in an open letter at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html -- being a non-US resident, I am unable to sign
that letter; however, I assure you that I would if I were permitted. A
number of other points spring to mind, and it is those that I wish to
address in this email, rather than cover the ground already more than
adequately covered by Mr. Kegel.
Section III.J.1 states that no API or Communication Protocol need be
licensed ``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''.
There is at least one case in the past where protocols essential for
interoperation with Microsoft products (specifically, those implemented by
the Samba project) were not properly authenticated at the server side.
Instead, the server relied upon the *client* to request only shares that it
was authorised to request. If the client did not perform proper
authentication and validation of the request, the server would happily
provide the data requested.
Details of this vulnerability can be found at the URL http://
www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/vulns-item.pl'section=discussion&id=1884
Taken in the most literal sense, then, if there were such a flaw in the
implementation of some protocol in Windows 2000, Microsoft would not be
obliged to release the protocol specifications, because doing so would
compromise the system's security.. because the security is on the client's
side, not the server's side. Upon such fine points can lawyers wriggle out
of the spirit of the agreement, whilst keeping to the letter.
Secondly, section III.J.2 allows Microsoft to make certain requirements on
the licensee: specifically,
``(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.''
If I, as an individual, wish to write (for example) a word processor which
reads in Microsoft Word documents, I would require the document format
specification. However, it may be that I wish to make that program
available to all for their use as they see fit, with no formal renumeration
from the end users. In this case, it could be argued that, as I am not
involved in a business activity (as I do not intend to profit from my
activity), I could not have a reasonable business need for this
information. In addition, the third-party verification could prove to be
cost-prohibitive for all but large-scale businesses.
Finally, an observation that appears to have been overlooked by the DoJ in
its consideration: the de-facto standard for the exchange of information
between businesses is Microsoft Office--in particular, Microsoft Word
and Microsoft Excel. I realise that this point has been covered by Mr.
Kegel; however, I feel it of sufficient importance to raise it once more.
The largest impediment to any organisation that may wish to move away from
a dependance upon Microsoft products is the non-availability of a
completely compatible, independant word processing and spreadsheet package.
There are independant products of this nature available--StarOffice,
KOffice, and Applix are three that spring to mind--however, they are
not able to do a completely reliable job of converting to or from
Microsoft's file formats.
The Microsoft packages are available only for Microsoft Windows, and the
Apple Macintosh. There is nothing in the agreement that covers:
vendors wishing to produce products compatible with the Microsoft Office
products;
Microsoft's ability to withdraw, at any time, its Office products from the
Macintosh platform;
Microsoft's ability to change, at any time, the file formats used as
standard in Office; or
Microsoft's ability to change the pricing on Office to suit their own ends.
For example, the Macintosh Office suite is only available as a single
package, whilst the Windows suite is available in a number of bundles of
varying prices. The price for the Mac suite is significantly greater than
the low-end Windows suite, even though a user may only require
functionality equivalent to that contained in the low-end Windows suite.
The competitive scene in the personal computer market would be greatly
improved were Microsoft compelled to publish, freely available to all (or
for a nominal publication and shipping cost), the complete specification
required to properly read and write all possible aspects of Microsoft
Office files. They should also be compelled to document all the programming
languages, such as VBA, that may be embedded within such files.
I greatly appreciate the strains upon you in terms of time and other
resources. This matter is, however, of great importance to the computing
fraternity. It grieves me deeply to see the market dependant upon one
source for the de-facto standard systems, who is free to set prices as they
wish.
Finally, I should point out that in these matters, I am speaking on my own
behalf, not that of my employer.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Stuart Lamble,
c/o IT Services,
Monash University,
Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, 3168
Australia.
MTC-00023281
From: Geo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:01pm
Subject: Settlement is ineffective
BlankI oppose the settlement because I believe that it will be ineffective
in truly opening the market place to competitors, which would benefit the
consumer.
Sincerely,
Geoff Freebern
Tampa, Fl.
MTC-00023282
From: Rob Mayoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02pm
Subject: opposed to revised proposed final judgement
I am opposed to the revised proposed Final Judgement dated 2001/11/06. I
have been a professional software developer for 13 years, and I see many
problems with the proposed settlement. It will do much too little to
prevent Microsoft from engaging in the same types of damaging behavior that
resulted in its illegal monopoly. It fails to punish Microsoft for its past
behavior. Its term is too brief. The enforcement provisions grant too much
power to Microsoft, and fail to specify penalties for noncompliance.
Please withdraw your consent to the revised proposed Final Judgement.
Very Truly Yours,
Rob Mayoff
4207 Palacios Cove
Austin, TX 78749
MTC-00023283
From: Michael H Roland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft will have little
effect in stopping Microsoft's monoplistic practices. The proposal seems to
have a loophole for each proposed remedy. Microsoft has not changed its
behavior since being found guilty of monopolistic practices. In fact,
Microsoft has become more brazen. Microsoft seems to realise that the
proposed settlement will not affect their current business practices.
I believe the proposed antitrust settlement will have to be much more
specific to have any effect on Microsoft.
Michael Roland
MTC-00023284
From: Todd Partridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02pm
Subject: big business isn't always better
As a computer user every day, I was one of the small group of people who
saw Microsoft actions leading to such economically crippling results far
before concerns of monopoly appeared. Any company so large inadvertantly
swings into
[[Page 27295]]
competitors without notice, but this we must remember is not why Microsoft
is being punished. Microsoft directly threatened(verbally and physically)
key players in it's industry. So the question is: How do we curb this
habit? Thus far we asked Microsoft to write it's own punishment, and like
other requests of Microsoft that they did not want to do, they treated it
with disdain their lawyers smiling. Is Microsoft above punishment? The
government seems wary to punish them. Curbing this behavior is simple with
many means to do it? The real question is: Do you have the gusto to?
Todd [email protected]
MTC-00023285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 7:59pm
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,
Barbara Melvin
1108 n.w. end st.
Springdale, AR 72764
MTC-00023286
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:02pm
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,
Bob McCloud
P.O. Box 5607
Lafayette, IN 47903
MTC-00023287
From: Stephen Martin
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetg...
Date: 1/24/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to voice my opinion that the proposed settlement does not
go any where near far enough to punish Microsoft for thier abuses of power,
nor does it provide any guarentee that they will be controlled or stopped
from doing more of the same in the future. As a software developer and one
who has sat on IETF working groups, I have seen how Microsoft controls and
terrorizes the software industry. If a company is lucky, they may survive
and flourish as long as they are able to remain under the radar of the
giant. This means either servicing a market that Microsoft is not currently
interested in, or working to support their cause in an area they at they
can not currently be bothered to do themselves. Trying to compete against
them at this point is impossible. It's impossible for two reasons, first no
one will invest in a company that competes with Microsoft, and secondly how
can you compete with a company that has a seemingly endless amount of money
to spend on development.
Any solution to the Microsoft problem must require them to fully disclose
all API's, protocols, RPC's, interfaces and file formats. It also must
require them to place this information under the control of a standards
body and provide full disclosure of any planned or proposed changes to them
well before Microsoft releases any new software. This is extremely
important given that Microsoft has supporting monopolies in both operating
systems and desktop applications. Microsoft constantly uses proprietary
file formats, protocols, etc. to not only push other vendors out of the
market but to lock in consumers and force them to upgrade
Microsoft software for no other reason than Microsoft has made a new
version that is incompatable with the previous one. Forcing Microsoft to
disclose this information in no way threatens their ability to
``innovate'' nor does it put them at a disadvantage in the market
place. What it does do is provide the possibility, however slight, for
other companies to enter and access the marketplace.
In closing I would just like to say that as a US resident, tax payer and
consumer I do not support the current remedy and ask for something much
stricter and comprehensive.
Stephen Martin [email protected]
80 Hunterdon Blvd. [email protected]
Murray Hill, NJ [email protected]
USA, 07974 Phone: (908) 790-9070
MTC-00023288
From: Bob O'Rear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to complete the Tunney Review of the Microsoft Settlement and go
forward with this settlement as it is in the best interests of consumers.
Thank You,
Robert O'Rear
9001 NE 26th St.
Clyde Hill, WA 98004
MTC-00023289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2000 Beechwood Road
Hyattsville, MD 20783
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
It has come to my attention that a settlement has been reached between the
Justice Department, and Microsoft. I want you to know that I support the
settlement, because the terms set forth in it are fair and reasonable.
Microsoft will be making a number of specific changes to its products, and
business practices. For instance, Microsoft has agreed to allow computer
makers to remove the means by which consumers access various features of
Windows, such as Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media
Player, and Windows Messenger. Computer makers can replace access to those
features with access to non-Microsoft software such as programs from AOL
Time Warner or Real Networks.
Furthermore, a three person technical committee will be in place to monitor
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement, and aid in dispute resolution.
I ask that the government stop prosecuting Microsoft once and for all!
Sincerely,
Dev Puri
MTC-00023290
From: David Felske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I believe that the settlement process between Microsoft And The Department
of Justice should stand. This position is clearly in the best interest of
the consumer.
Sincerely,
David E Felske
22532 N Sonora Lane
Sun City West, AZ 85375
MTC-00023291
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:04pm
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.
[[Page 27296]]
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,
Theodore Hills
147 Rock Road West
Lambertville, NJ 08530-3111
MTC-00023292
From: Don Marti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
The absence of an appropriate, large, fine is a fatal, glaring defect in
the proposed settlement. Microsoft broke the law. Microsoft made billions
of dollars by breaking the law.
A ``settlement'' that lets them walk away with the money is a
mockery of the law.
Don Marti
http://zgp.org/dmarti
[email protected]
KG6INA
MTC-00023293
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I want to add my voice to the chorus against the proposed settlement. I do
not see that the current settlement will in fact restrain future anti
competitive conduct by Microsoft.
I have been using computers since my high school days in the early 1970s. I
have worked on a number of operating systems, and with a variety of
hardware. As a physicist and now a computer professional, I have had an
opportunity to look at a number of different systems and work on a number
of different platforms. I can say, without a doubt, that the Windows
platform has been about the most unreliable I have had to work on during
these years.
The essence of competition is that the Market should have adjusted to this
fact and provided competitors to both the Windows operating system and
Windows applications. Let me say that there are a number of fine Windows
applications that would find a market no matter which platform they were
built for. I think that Microsoft Powerpoint, and Microsoft Excel are
definitely world class products and could, in an open market succeed rather
handsomely. But beyond those two products, I have grave doubts that a level
playing field would make Microsoft a dominate player in both the operating
system and the application side.
This leads us to the question, why hasn't the market succeeded? The answer
was eloquently put by Judge Jackson when he said there is a ``barrier
to entry'' into the field. An operating system should simply allow you
to run the applications you choose to run. Applications then should carry
out the tasks that you choose. Microsoft has turned this logic on its head
by integrating both its applications and its operating system so that you
cannot choose one without the other thereby erecting the ``barrier to
entry'' for other applications and operating systems.
This was aptly demonstrated by the governments case in the anti-trust
filing in the case of Netscape. Microsoft forced OEM manufactures to put
Internet Explorer onto the machine when there is no technical reason why
Windows Explorer should be chosen over Netscape Explorer or visa versa.
Microsoft further was shown to have lied when it claimed that the Internet
explorer was the only choice for its operating system. The true essense of
competition should be to let the consumers decide which application to run
on which operating system not by fiat and requirement from Redmond
Washington, but by the requirements of the tasks and costs faced by the
consumer.
Microsoft certainly has shown no real intent to open a space between its
operating system and its applications. Until and unless the company shows a
commitment to carrying out this vital task, it will continue to squash
competition not by the fair rules of the market, but by its monopoly
position in operating systems.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Forest Rouse.
MTC-00023294
From: Professor Time
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello again. I have a small observation that I would like to share with
you.
1) US Government persecutes, sorry, I mean prosecutes
Microsoft--shortly thereafter the economy drops through the basement
and I find myself out of a job. With a wife and 4 kids I might add.
2) AOL/Time Warner files all kinds of suits against Microsoft yet the US
Government never bothers to see if THEY just might be a monopoly--and
a vicious one too.
Just for once, how about letting someone who is successful help his
country's economy and let me get back to work.
I wonder if anyone up there in the government stratosphere has noticed that
the computer industry is now the only place where we have any kind of a
serious advantage anymore. Let's not destroy it.
W. Craig Westlake
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:05pm
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,
Warren Braun
11531 N. Civano Place
Oro Valley, AZ 85737-1719
MTC-00023297
From: Scott M. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept. of Justice,
I am writing as a concerned citizen in Washington State regarding the
Microsoft / DOJ Settlement. I strongly urge you to settle the case and
agree to the terms that the DOJ and Microsoft have agreed upon. As a 20
year veteran of the computer industry I have seen technology change from a
unique perspective and I would like to point out some facts and opinions
never mentioned by Microsoft competitors. The reality of the situation is
certainly not what is portrayed by the Millions of dollars in lobbying
spent by anti-Microsoft parties. *In the computer industry, if you do not
have the best product, your market share will decline until you are out of
business, or you improve your product.
The ability of a new competitor to take over a market segment can happen
overnight if the product is revolutionary or has superior quality and
supportability.
The fact that Microsoft has a dominant position in the operating system
market came from Quality Products that took millions of hours to create.
This fact, combined with the effort of hundreds of thousands of programmers
that adopt Microsoft technologies, because they were easy to use and
employed modular coding techniques made it easy to build solutions that
work for businesses. (Solutions make business more productive)
The investment cost to build revolutionary products that are used by
Millions of people is extreme... Billions of dollars to design and perfect
the code to get it to a usable level. Then years of refining and
optimization to produce one that works seamlessly, has the best set of
functions and doesn't crash. This investment of money and man hours is
rewarded in the marketplace by sales. Only through economies of scale, can
a profit can be achieved.
The government and Microsoft competitors should not determine what
functionality can and can't be included in a given product.
If a company can make a product that has the functions people need then
they should
[[Page 27297]]
be allowed to develop it and sell it without fear.
In the future you will see a drastically different world then you see
today. Thousands of people are working on killer apps, new operating
systems, exotic form factors and new products that will someday blow your
mind and drastically change the way you live and work.
Microsoft made many of these innovations possible, Microsoft took the risk
to invest billions of dollars making these technologies through years of
research and development.
Microsoft gives thousands of companies opportunities to make millions of
dollars developing products that work on a common platform. Consumers have
not been harmed by Microsoft, Consumers are the ones that request the
software and the features that Microsoft builds, Consumers are the ones
that reap the benefits of software that has innovative new features and
works great together.
Because of Microsoft:
Businesses are more productive,
Consumers are more enriched,
My children will go to college.
Thank You,
Scott M. Johnson
Microsoft Corporation
Program Manager
Windows Driver Quality
See http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/default.asp for more
information I agree with.
MTC-00023298
From: Dave Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly urge the Justice Department to summarily reject Microsoft's own
offer for a settlement to the successful anti-trust and monopoly judgement,
and instead come up with a settlement that will properly punish Microsoft
for their unfair and monopolistic practices, one that will quash the
monopoly, as was intended when the anti-trust laws were drafted and put
into effect so long ago.
Microsoft's own solution (to be fined a minuscule amount in proportion to
their crimes, and to provide the country's schools with copies of Microsoft
products and used computers) would only serve to further extend Microsoft's
monopoly into an area where they have long been excluded. These copies of
Microsoft products (presumably their operating systems and application
software) would be counted at or near full retail cost. It actually costs a
fraction of that amount for Microsoft to create and distribute compact
discs to schools, and this negates the true value of this portion of their
penalty. Too, the children in these schools (and their teachers as well)
would be forced, and conditioned, into using Microsoft products to the
exclusion of all else, and would of course become future full-price
Microsoft customers.
This is hardly punishment. It's more like handing Microsoft the keys to the
country's cash box, and walking away. For a financial penalty, I propose
that Microsoft be fined quite heavily, in true proportion to the crimes of
which it has been convicted. I also propose that all of the consumers who
have for years not been given a choice while purchasing hardware, being
forced to purchase a copy of Microsoft Windows, to be given the power to
have their money refunded in full. I also propose that Microsoft be split
into two distinct companies, one responsible for maintaining and developing
their operating systems (and hopefully paying some attention to an issue
they've long neglected, to the detriment of the very customers they have so
haughtily trod upon over the years: security), and another company
responsible for application software.
These two companies should not be able to act in concert, or as one, to
maintain and extend the Microsoft monopoly, and should be prevented from
requiring hardware makers to pre-install Windows products on their
hardware. Further, the operating system company should not be allowed
incorporate any of the application company's software into the operating
system, or to provide anti-competitive ``secret'' hooks into the
operating system that make their application software run better than that
of their competitors, as has been Microsoft's standard practice for years.
This is the only way that consumers can be offered a free choice between
the various pieces of application software, operating systems, and even
computer hardware, in existence today. That's all the consumer is looking
for here: the freedom to decide what they will buy and use, a freedom that
exists in almost every aspect of our great society save for the personal
desktop and server computer industry. And that's precisely what Microsoft's
illegal monopoly has been preventing the consumer from attaining for
decades.
Thank you for your consideration of this comment, and for the solicitation
of public comments regarding the penalty phase of the Microsoft case.
MTC-00023299
From: John Beal
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is not strong enough
Dear Sirs,
I would encourage you to reject the Microsoft proposed settlement as too
little, too late. As proposed, the settlement further reduces competition
by further marginalizing the Apple Macintosh and Linux operating systems.
Instead, Microsoft should be required to open up the code to it's Microsoft
Office products and/or pay monetary compensation to those companies and
individuals harmed by their monopolistic practices.
Sincerely,
John Beal II
MTC-00023300
From: Ralph G Jaeggli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It has been a mistake to penalize Microsoft for conducting their business
in an agressive and highly effective manner. I have not heard one comment
from Microsoft users about being bothered or harmed in any way throught
this whole fiasco and I feel this latest action is one more way Microsoft's
competitors can get free money.
Ralph G. Jaeggli
15 East Ridgeway Drive
Weaverville, NC 28787-9487
828-645-7600
MTC-00023301
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:09pm
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,
Brennen Ivy
6222 Meadow View
Las Vegas, NV 89103-1128
MTC-00023302
From: Wayne Kallestad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the
desktop. To continue to punish Microsoft gives a windfall to Netscape and
other competitors, but nothing goes to those supposedly harmed, the
computer user. What is happening though is this case is giving the states
another method for getting free money and setting a terrible precedent for
the future.
The witch hunt has gone on long enough. Please end the case now.
CC:Wayne-Home
MTC-00023303
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:08pm
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
[[Page 27298]]
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,
Julie Kelly
13501 Haines Ave., NE
ABQ, NM 87112
MTC-00023304
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:09pm
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,
Larry martin
11529 W. Palm Brook Drive
Avondale, AZ 85323-3839
MTC-00023305
From: Aaron Schmiedel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am TOTALLY against the settlement as is with Microsoft. Apparently, they
will just continue using their monopoly to put small competition out of
business. Harsh sanctions, not a slap on a wrist, are necessary.
Split the company!
MTC-00023306
From: Frank Kink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alright, I think that it is time to stop all these frivolous lawsuits and
lets concentrate on good solid consumer programs. I presently maintain 700
desktop P.C's and have had to completely reload 10 that the new AOL
connection software was loaded on. As a company policy now we do not allow
anyone to load anything AOL, which is just not a reliable piece of
software. This was probably do to some subversive code written within the
Microsoft Windows OS that causes these problems. O'' Yes it must be a
Microsoft problem. These problems range from system lockups, to software
corruption. After trying to uninstall the program several times but to no
avail I had to resort to a complete reload. I have never had any problems
with internet explorer, no matter what version was installed. I would hope
that AOL was willing to defend it's present software, and also the many
complaints I have had with their dial-up service. These vary from unable to
connect to constantly having to reconnect. AOL problems do not emanate from
Microsoft products, but from their own software. Any loss of business that
AOL claims was do to the Microsoft browser, would be minute compared to the
number of people that quite using AOL do to poor performance.
Maybe someone should file suit against AOL for delivery of a defective
product! Witnesses would be simple to find since anyone who is presently
using AOL will attest to these and probably many more problems. Lets not
use Microsoft as a whipping boy for problems they don't, and would not have
had any control over. Lets get out of court with these seemingly endless
stupid suits, and start to clean up the backlog of consumer protection
suits that really matter or have some merit.
Frank Kink
P.O. Box 7253
Springfield, IL 62791
Frank Kink
[email protected]
MTC-00023307
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:09pm
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,
Albert Stilwell, Jr.
Rt. 1 Box 923
Pounding Mill, VA 24637
MTC-00023308
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft
Microsoft needs to do business. They or Microsoft does not need courts or
goverment in there business.
MTC-00023309
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10pm
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,
Maurice Payne
8525 Todd Bridge Rd
Owensboro, KY 42301-9615
MTC-00023310
From: Michelle Stecklein
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 8:03pm
Subject: One consumers input To whom it may concern,
It seems to be that if, in fact, it has been decided that Microsoft used
its market power in restraint of trade, the settlement ought not futher
Microsoft's strenght in the market. By giving a large amount of software to
the education market, Microsoft is ensuring that they will dominate a
segment which they are not yet fully entrenched. Further, the cost of
producing the software is not equivalent to the market value of the
software. If the legal remedy includes a fine which is paid with donated
software valued at market price, Mircosoft is paying a smaller fine that
what has actually been levied.
If Microsoft is guilty of restraint of trade and if a fine is the best
remedy, it seems that the fine ought to be paid in cash to those on whom
the damage was inflicted--businesses and consumers who purchased the
product. The real question is is whether a fine is enough to cause
Microsoft to act in a more sportsman-like manner. I doubt that there is a
fine large enough. It seems that as long as Microsoft controls the
operating systems so completely, they will alway be able to squeeze the
next potential software application competitor out of the market. While it
may not be the right long term action to split the company, it may be right
long term action to force Microsoft to open up the source code for the
operating system. It is clearly a complex case. And I have not invested the
time and energy nor have the experience of someone of your position. I
appreciate the effort that you are putting in to the case. I trust that you
will make the just decisions even though many special interest groups may
be pushing you to take the path of least resistance.
[[Page 27299]]
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Stecklein
Michelle Stecklein
Managing Director
Thompson Clive & Partners Inc.
3000 Sand Hill Road
Building One, Suite 185
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Office 650 854 0314
Fax 650 854 0670
michelle @tcvc.com
MTC-00023311
From: Jim Bode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle the anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, Please! Do not allow
Microsoft's competitors to do battle in the court room. Microsoft has not
done anything to hurt consumers. In fact, through their innovations, they
have aided consumers in having a better computing experience for less
money.
Please end this frivolous lawsuit immediately and let Microsoft get on with
doing what they do best, make great software.
Jim Bode
Bode [http://www.bodeenterprises.com] Enterprises Web Site
MTC-00023312
From: Arfon Gryffydd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it mat concern,
The proposed Microsoft settlement is, in my opinion, a farce. The
settlement does noting to prevent Microsoft from continuing their illegal
practices nor provide any compensation to the people that have been hurt by
Microsoft's actions. The only real solution is the dissolution of
Microsoft! Only that would be acceptable.
A. Gryffydd
MTC-00023313
From: Otto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
I might be the minority in my opinion, nonetheless I do support settling
your case with Microsoft. Doing otherwise would provide a precedent for
sub-standard products and might start a vicious circle of lawsuits. I am
proficient with three different operating systems, Windows, Solaris, and
different distributions of Linux. Neither Solaris, nor Linux comes close to
what Windows provides on the desktop. There are millions of Windows users
who will not be served by this lawsuit and the subsequent limitation of
Microsoft products.
Anyone so desired can get other systems without Microsoft software
installed on it is free to do so. You should not force people to use sub-
standard product. The success of the product should depend on the end user
and not the DOJ.
I do hope you'll count my email as a vote for the settlement.
Regards,
Otto
MTC-00023314
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:10pm
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,
Erich VanSpanje
32 Old Quaker Hill Rd
Monroe, NY 10950-1304
MTC-00023315
From: Roger Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14pm
Subject: Please settle the Microsoft case.
Roger Bailey, M.D.
409 A Street NE
Linton, IN 47441-1907
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Thank you for providing the opportunity for public comment on the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I support this settlement
wholeheartedly and without reservation.
As I understand the settlement, Microsoft has taken steps to open its
Windows operating systems to more competition from non-Microsoft software
programs. This will help competing Internet providers, messenging services,
and media playing systems that may in the past have faced barriers to being
installed or pre-installed on Windows. This is good news for both the
computer industry and consumers.
I hope that you move forward quickly after January 28, 2002, and end this
litigation. I think the Clinton administration-initiated litigation against
Microsoft has had a devastating effect on the tech sector of our economy
and the entire economy as a whole. I cannot imagine anyone thinking that
the advancements over the last 10 years, fueled by Microsoft products have
had anything but a positive effect on the consumer and country. I
appreciate the opportunity to comment and I appreciate your time.
Sincerely,
Roger Bailey
cc: Representative John Hostettler
MTC-00023316
From: Bernard Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a software developer and have been creating software for the Microsoft
environment for more than a decade. I consider myself a very knowledgeable
Windows developer. I have recently transitioned my personal computing
environment to the Apple Macintosh platform even though I still program and
work exclusively in Windows in my business ( I have to because of the
Microsoft monopoly!).
I believe the proposed settlement is insufficient in its current state.
While it does an adequate job of limiting non-competitive behavior in the
future, it does nothing to compensate or correct the monopolistic situation
that exists today. If this settlement had been enacted in the mid 1990's,
it might be enough. But today, especially with this economic climate, there
is no other viable alternative to the Microsoft operating system on an
Intel computing platform. Technically there is Linux and other versions of
Unix running on Intel, but given their incredible low market share it will
be impossible for them to effectively compete. Even Apple, which offers a
true competitive product on a different hardware platform, does not have
enough of a market share to compete. Apple is also significantly
disadvantaged because it does not run on the predominate hardware (Intel)
platform. Given the fact that this settlement will do nothing to restore a
competitive environment, I believe it is inadequate. A true settlement
would be one that not only stemmed the predatory practices, but also
created real incentives for other products and innovations to compete with
Microsoft at a significant level. Without such incentives, Microsoft will
be able to use pricing to effectively eliminate any future competition.
They will be able to say that the consumer is getting a great deal and that
is why it is good for the consumer, but in reality they will be able to
recoup the financial loss from one product because of their monopoly in
others.
Secondly, I believe the interest of the consumer is not being served with
this proposed settlement. As a developer, I can attest to the fact that the
Microsoft Windows operating system is significantly flawed in its design.
These flaws are evidenced by the security and reliability problems that
have become well known over the years. Without true competition, Microsoft
has been allowed to do three things. 1.) Continue to produce an operating
system environment with fundamental design flaws; 2.) Hold critical
information from competitive software developers about the operating system
inner workings that are critical to producing quality product; and 3.)
Charge customers upgrade fees every year or two for the latest version of
the operating system or application software. The incentive to upgrade is
often based on the need to achieve a higher degree of reliability or
security. Given that no competition really exists, the latest version of
Microsoft product can flourish even if it only resolves a portion of
[[Page 27300]]
the issues. In this manner, Microsoft is actually better off financially if
it leaves a few flaws in the software. They will be the basic reason for
users to consider the next upgrade.
My personal belief is that Microsoft would actually be a better company if
it were broken into two organizations. One company to carry forward with
the operating system and one to carry forward with the applications. In
addition, some form of remedy to encourage or compensate competitive
products should be considered. The damage has been done already. The
current proposal is like closing the barn door after all the cows have
gotten out.
Regards,
Bernard Bradley
MTC-00023317
From: Roger Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Thank you for providing the opportunity for public comment on the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I support this settlement
wholeheartedly and without reservation.
As I understand the settlement, Microsoft has taken steps to open its
Windows operating systems to more competition from non-Microsoft software
programs. This will help competing Internet providers, messenging services,
and media playing systems that may in the past have faced barriers to being
installed or pre- installed on Windows. This is good news for both the
computer industry and consumers.
I hope that you move forward quickly after January 28, 2002, and end this
litigation. I think the Clinton administration-initiated litigation against
Microsoft has had a devastating effect on the tech sector of our economy
and the entire economy as a whole. I cannot imagine anyone thinking that
the advancements over the last 10 years, fueled by Microsoft products have
had anything but a positive effect on the consumer and country. I
appreciate the opportunity to comment and I appreciate your time.
IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No,
there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on
weight.[]''''''
Sincerely,
Roger Bailey
00023317--0002
MTC-00023318
From: Michael Syvertsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lt Michael Syvertsen USN (Ret)
21613 Echo Lake Road
Snohomish, WA 98296-7857
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a user of Microsoft products and a strong supporter of the company, I
feel that the government has overstepped its bounds in this case. People
seem to forget that Microsoft did the most to bring standardization,
interoperability, and affordability to the software industry. The company
not only built a better mousetrap, but also priced it lower than the
competition's. If I have to choose between seeing Microsoft disbanded or
the Department of Justice settlement, I choose the settlement.
Under your settlement, Microsoft will allow software engineers and computer
makers to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft programs that
compete with the programs already included within Windows. This means that
Microsoft will more or less allow the competition to use the success of
Windows to launch their own programs that compete with those in Windows.
Does that sound like competition or exploitation? I think that if Microsoft
made products that competed in more traditional and understandable
industries, that we would call these concessions un-American. Imagine if
Coke was mandated to include a sample of Pepsi in every can, or if
McDonalds had to allow its customers to order a Burger King Whopper at its
own restaurants. Would this be competitive? Would we allow it?
I agree that Microsoft could retaliate less against those that promote or
produce non-Microsoft products, but that's capitalism and normal business,
and should be an ethical question rather than a legal one. So when choosing
between a break-up of Microsoft or the settlement, I choose the settlement.
I just hope that we're not back at the federal level again in a couple of
years, trying to protect Microsoft from competitors that are used to
litigating away market share rather than earning it. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
Lt Michael Syvertsen USN (Ret)
President Washington State Council of Chapters
The Retired Officer Association
CC:Patty Murray Politician,Maria Cantwell Politician
MTC-00023319
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15pm
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,
Alice Carr
7500 Hallows Dr
Nashville, TN 37221-1149
MTC-00023320
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15pm
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,
Jean Martin
615 Towne House Lane
Richardson, TX 75081-3531
MTC-00023321
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:15pm
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,
Ricky Brown
136 Exbourne Ave
San Carlos, CA 94070
MTC-00023322
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27301]]
Date: 1/24/02 8:16pm
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,
Peter Carr
7500 Hallows Dr
Nashville, TN 37221-1149
MTC-00023323
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The proposed microsoft settlement is unacceptable because it fails to
prevent microsoft from continuing to exploit its monopolistic position to
prevent competition while also allowing microsoft to keep profits illegally
obtained by its past transgressions. Under no circumstances should this
case be settled as proposed.
MTC-00023324
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:17pm
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,
Kenneth Paul Spart Sr.
PO Box 1029
Conway, AR 72033-1029
MTC-00023325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:17pm
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,
Donna Fox
8123 Cesperdes Ave.
Jacksonville, FL 32217-4068
MTC-00023326
From: JACK BALSAM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Despite my being a Microsoft shareholder, I think they are being let off
too easy.
There is no question in my mind that they are guilty of monopolistic
practices to the detriment of both competitors and the general public.
About three years ago I needed a new computer. I called Dell and asked them
to include Lotus Smart Suite instead of Microsoft Office as I was used to
the former's spreadsheet and word processing programs. They told me that
they could not accomodate my request as they did not handle Lotus software.
I then asked them to not include the Microsoft programs in the package and
give me a credit; that I would buy the Lotus software on my own. Again the
answer was in the negative. I made the same request of two other mail order
computer vendors with the same results. It was quite evident that Microsoft
used its operating system monopoly to force these manufacturers to install
only Microsoft products and let the public be damned. I have no doubt that
Netscape was similarly harmed in the case of their internet browser.
MTC-00023327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:17pm
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,
Cheryl Smith
543 Mapleranda Rd
Bumpass, VA 23024-2605
MTC-00023328
From: Donald R McCarty
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 8:20pm
Subject: Worse than nothing
The appalling inadequacy of the proposed settlement is evident even to a
non-lawyer. Subsequent public analysis and discussion of the settlement in
the press and other forums has widely reinforced that perception. A few
points I find most disturbing are listed below:
1. The settlement encourages misbehaviour by future monopolists. Microsoft
has benefited greatly from its illegal actions in terms of profit and
market position, but suffers almost no real penalty under this settlement.
There is evidently great profit to be made in forming and maintaining an
illegal monopoly even if one is eventually convicted. Even if we suppose
the strictures of the present settlement are sufficient to restrain future
misconduct of MS (and they clearly are not sufficient), MS remains far
better off and continues to profit greatly from having taken its illegal
course of actions against competitors. So why wouldn't they or any future
monopolist embark on a similar course today given the opportunity? The
evident answer is that they would be foolish not to.
2. The language and definitions in the settlement are carefully parsed and
sufficiently ambiguous as to impose no real restrictions on MS. MS is a
past master at negiotiating this kind of document. Software is sufficiently
maleable that it easily be shaped and concealed within this shell game of
definitions. Hence effective enforcement will be difficult or impossible.
This has the effect of immunizing MS from future litigation--in effect
rewarding their past illegal behaviour. How many times must the courts be
flaunted by the contemptuous ``ham sandwich'' defense before this
lession is learned? I believe the public would be better served by having
no settlement.
3. The repeated invocation of the 9/11 national emergency by the presiding
judge as cause for haste in reaching a settlement defies all logic. The
dire consequences of failing to adequately restrain an illegal monopolist
can only be magnified in a national emergency--especially as MS
illegal actions affect innovation in the critical tech sector. The judge's
statements are widely perceived as having contributed directly to the
climate that produced this very weak and therefore very dangerous
settlement.
[[Page 27302]]
MTC-00023329
From: Aaron Cherrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:21pm
Subject: Nay to the microsoft judgement
I will keep this simple for you. I plead of you not to allow this
resolution to pass. Companies have been crushed, the public harmed, and the
technical innovation stolen by microsoft. Please do not let the deal stand.
Thank you for serving the ideals of justice,
Aaron Cherrington
MTC-00023330
From: Bill Matthiesen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear People--
I'm writing to express my opinion as being AGAINST the proposed settlement
with Microsoft. My understanding of the facts of the settlement is that it
will neither prevent the monopolistic pratices that were the cause of the
suit in the first place--nor will it stimulate investment in better
technologies. Both are ample reasons to send this settlement back to the
drawing boards, to come up with something that will help both the consumer
and the larger computer industry.
Thanks for taking my opinion into consideration.
William W. Matthiesen
33 Stormview Road
Lanesboro, MA 01237
413-442-9172
[email protected]
MTC-00023331
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:18pm
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,
Shirley Weyand
1923 Flores St.
Hemet, CA 92545-2468
MTC-00023332
From: Edward P. Bolin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
As an end user of computer technology since 1980 I have found that my
computing experience has been enhanced by changes and advancements in both
the software and hardware environments that can be directly attributed to
Microsoft's contributions in both development and leadership.
Microsoft lead the way in creating competition in computer hardware
manufacturing by making MS-DOS available to not only IBM, but also to
startup companies that wished to compete with IBM, which lead to a decrease
in cost to the consumer. Microsoft's leadership in creating standards for
software applications again saved money for the consumer by decreasing the
steep learning curves inherent in the non-standard command structure of
early word processors, spreadsheets and databases.
Through the years Microsoft continued to improve its software products and
challenged the hardware industry to match its pace by developing more
powerful computers to run the advanced software providing better tools for
the consumer, and yes, at lower cost.
Did Microsoft prosper from its strategy of seeking excellence and
standardization in the highly competitive computer marketplace? Yes and so
did all consumers.
As one of those consumers that has to watch his budget carefully, I must
choose hardware and software based on price, quality and usability. Based
on these factors I have chosen the IBM standard Personal Computer (from IBM
to Packard Bell to Dell), Microsoft operating systems (which I choose to
upgrade based on my needs, sometimes purchasing a new computer with the
operating system pre-installed and sometimes purchasing an upgrade in the
box over-the-counter: I went from MS-DOS to MS-Windows 3.11 to Windows 95
to Windows 98 SE and soon will purchase a new computer with Microsoft
Windows XP Professional) and Microsoft application software (all versions
of Microsoft Office Professional through the years). Was Microsoft always
the lowest priced software? No it was not, but it offered the best
usability features, making it the most cost effective. Have I owned the
competitors'' software? Yes I have and in the end I went back to
Microsoft simply because it is a superior product.
Guess what? That superiority, not unfair practices (unless being better is
unfair), is why Microsoft is today's technology leader. Isn't that the
American way?
By the way, I am not only an end user, I am also a computer technology
instructor in a community college. I have seen students from 16 to 75 years
of age easily master computer skills using mouse clicks and the simple set
of commands made possible by Microsoft software. The students horizons have
been broadened and the lives enriched. Thank you, Microsoft!
Sincerely,
MTC-00023333
From: JAMES A THORPE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I truly believe you have successfully defended my rights as a
user of Microsoft products from ``Monopoly'' status. To allow AOL
to come in now to continue to confuse the issue would be a travesty. AOL is
fast working toward ``monopoly'' status itself with its cornering
of the internet access market and is seeking more at Microsoft's
shareholders'' and users'' expense.
James A. Thorpe
223 5th Ave. S.
Kirkland WA. 98033
MTC-00023334
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:20pm
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,
Stephen Nystrom
458 Falls Creek Rd
Sanford, NC 27330
MTC-00023335
From: John E. Getz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23pm
Subject: How can you rape the best company to happen in ages?
Microsoft has done more to help the USA than all the Netscapes and Sun
Microsystems combined. It's a travesty of justice, and all I believe this
country to stand for, to see the shiester lawyers rape the company that
helped me do my work.
MTC-00023336
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:21pm
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
[[Page 27303]]
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,
Stanley Riley
871 Harris Rd.
Placerville, CA 95667
MTC-00023337
From: Yvonne Hull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not in favor of the proposed settlement. It is not restrictive enough.
Microsoft is too willing to exploit gray areas.
Kind regards,
MTC-00023338
From: SOFTWARE by design
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:25pm
Subject: Attn: Renata Hesse
SOFTWARE
625 East De/ Mar Boulevard--Suite 307--Pasadena, CA
91101
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
Department of 3ustice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530;
[[email protected]]
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
Dear Ms, Hesse,
In response to the invitation for public comment on the proposed consent
final judgment for US v. Microsoft I offer the following thoughts from my
own perspective as a software developer:
An Historical Overview:
Microsoft continually claims that it is defending its right to innovate.
This is widely regarded as a cruel joke in an industry that regularly sees
its best innovators attacked by Microsoft's unlawful anticompetitive
behaviors.
Microsoft's agenda isn't innovation. It seeks to impose suffocating control
over user choices and expand its ever-widening monopoly.
Microsoft is continually seeking to leverage its control over computer
operating systems to gain control over technical (computer related and
consumer) markets. To this end, they employ the use of restrictive
contracts, strategically shifting standards, manipulation of product
compatibility and other (unlawful) forms of monopolistic warfare.
Microsoft further seeks to expand its domination by transforming the
Internet into its own private network.
One result (among others) is that companies must spend enormous resources
anticipating and responding to these unlawful practices, which in turn,
seriously detract from efforts to innovate or improve existing (competing)
products. These very substantial costs are thus effectively hidden in the
pricing and availability of competing products generally. The consuming
public, in the end, unknowingly bears these costs. What do we get for our
money? Mediocre/unreliable products, and a steadily shrinking array of
choices.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U. 5, District Court
age 2
Findings of Fact:
The findings of fact in the Microsoft case are a devastating indictment of
the company. Microsoft was found to be responsible for a litany of anti-
competitive and illegal practices that have harmed consumers.
Little effort is required to discover a long and tortured history of
Microsoft's evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace
of anticompetitive practices--practices recognized as illegal by all
members of the DC Circuit court.
Subsequent to these events, Microsoft remains ruthless and totally
unrepentant. The Currently Proposed Remedy:
The currently proposed remedies are toothless and largely cosmetic.
The proposed final order is populated with unintelligible gibberish and
fluff such as: ``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.'' As was once remarked in an earlier
time, ``There is less here than meets the eye.''
The settlement contains no real penalties and actually perpetuates
Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
Among other omissions, the absence of technical disclosure practice
demonstrates a complete, profound, and willing capitulation on the part of
the Justice Department. Compliance provisions in the proposed agreement
embrace the most astonishingly weak oversight regime which includes
--secrecy, --a guarantee of undue influence from Microsoft, and
--a total lack of strong independent oversight.
The proposal actually legalizes and institutionalizes the continuation of
Microsoft's tight control over access to technical information, and as a
result, guarantees a continuation of its monopoly power over existing
markets by denying meaningful access to needed technical data by would-be
competitors.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court
Page 3
A More Meaningful Remedy:
In an industry (software) with short product cycles, changing product
definitions & production innovations, it is critical that any remedies
address the root causes of Microsoft's unlawful practices.
Among other things, the government must (at a minimum) require (in no
particular order):
--full support for nonproprietary Internet protocols,
--nondiscriminatory licensing (independently enforced),
--nondiscriminatory sharing of technical information (ie. file
formats)
--divestitures
--no secrecy, public oversight is absolutely essential
--meaningful restitution in proportion to the severity of the
offenses.
(this means seriously punitive fines with triple damages)
The software industry, and the consuming public which it serves, will
ultimately benefit from more diversity and less monopoly. The current
proposal from the Justice Department is a national embarrassment and a
cause for deep shame. Finally, both Microsoft and the DOJ, it now seems,
have deliberately avoided the disclosure requirements of the Tunney Act
process by submitting incomplete and misleading information. It is unlikely
that the Do] could have come up with a settlement so warmly accommodating
of Microsoft without considerable coaching from Redmond.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas N. Glenn, Ph.D.
SOFTWARE by design
MTC-00023338--0004
MTC-00023339
From: dwilliamsll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DAVID WILLIAMS
7756 Dragonhead Road
Fayetteville, NC 28311
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support of the Microsoft
settlement. After three years of litigation, I find it high time that the
Justice Department ends this case against Microsoft. Too many federal
dollars have already been wasted on this issue.
The details of the settlement are quite fair. Microsoft has agreed to make
concessions in the hopes of resolving this issue. For one, with the release
of Windows XP, Microsoft is implementing a new mechanism that will enable
users to add and delete programs from the Windows operating system with
increased ease. Similarly, this will enable users to delete programs that
they do not want from the system such as Microsoft Internet Explorer and
Media Player. I imagine that the average consumer would enjoy these
changes.
Thank you for your time regarding this issue. Please enact the settlement
at the end of January.
Sincerely,
David Williams 30023339--0002
MTC-00023340
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:22pm
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
[[Page 27304]]
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,
Steve Vanover
1436 w Erie St
Chicago, IL 60622-6155
MTC-00023341
From: David W Schuler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am writing today to protest the recently proposed settlement for damages
relating to the monopoly status of Microsoft. I believe that both my
employer and I, personally, have been damaged by Microsoft. The recently
proposed settlement does not attempt to provide restitution to the affected
businesses and individuals who have been forced to either buy copies of
Windows when they did not want them, or to pay higher than free-market
prices for their software.
To support my first claim that at times I did not want to buy Windows at
all, I offer the following. Both my employer and I run the Linux operating
system on some of our systems. Those systems purchased from any of a number
of companies, including IBM, were only available with Microsoft's Windows
operating system pre-installed. As a consumer, I was not allowed to
purchase a system without this operating system installed, and I also was
not offered a choice of any other operating systems on my Intel-compatible
x86 computer. Thus, I was required to purchase software and license for a
system on which I did not desire to run the Microsoft operating system. It
has also been established that due to it's monopoly position, Microsoft was
able to charge a higher than normal price for it's products. For the
computers I own at home that do run the Windows operatnig system, I have
purchased copies of Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition and
Windows 2000. All of these copies were purchased as upgrades or full
copies, at retail prices. The fact that there are never any ``sale
prices'' on Microsoft software points out, in my opinion, part of the
monopoly position that Microsoft posesses. They are able to control and
manipulate the marketplace sufficiently enough to control pricing at a vast
number of different retail establishments.
Any proposed settlement should, in my mind, be viewed as a penalty for
Microsoft. It should NOT allow Microsoft to make any
``donations'' of software or services. It should not allow
Microsoft to write off the expense as a ``donation'' or
contribution to schools or non-profit agencies. ANY SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE IN
THE FORM OF A REFUND / REBATE TO THE CONSUMER WHO WAS FORCED TO PURCHASE
MICROSOFT'S PRODUCT AT INFLATED PRICES. There should be no strings attached
to the refund that require purchase of a future Microsoft product or
service, it should be a true no-strings refund. As an injured consumer who
has been victimized by Microsoft's monopoly position, I would hope that you
would ensure that I am compensated for the way that Microsoft has defrauded
me.
David W Schuler
[email protected]
MTC-00023342
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:23pm
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,
Mari Jo Cline
8080 Hwy 78 West #21
Beulah, CO 81023-9700
MTC-00023343
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:24pm
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,
Richard Wagner, Jr.
12006 E. Mapleton Rd.
Mapleton, OR 97453
MTC-00023344
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:27pm
Subject: Fwd: microsoft settlement
The proposed microsoft settlement is unacceptable because it fails to
prevent microsoft from continuing to exploit its monopolistic position to
prevent competition while also allowing microsoft to keep profits illegally
obtained by its past transgressions. Under no circumstances should this
case be settled as proposed.
Deanna Cheung M.D.
2865 Atlantic
Long Beach, CA 90808
MTC-00023345
From: usinet.gekovac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement proposed does not adequately fine Microsoft for its
monopolistic practices and does not inflict enough pine to prevent further
transgressions. The proposal to supply free software to the school system
is more a reward then a punishment, since software companies would like
early exposure of the products to future consumers. I have known small
software developers whose software and companies could not survive when
competing with Microsoft when their product competes with a Microsoft
program, or the vendor refuses to sell his software to Microsoft.
I do not accept that I should pay for a Microsoft OS when purchasing a new
computer, as is the current case. This should be prohibited for the
computer consumer who does not want Windows.
Fine them big time, and make them pay! Make future abuses unacceptable.
George Kovach MD
27948 229th Street
Le Claire Iowa 52753
MTC-00023346
From: Dale DuVall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement opinion
I feel that since the US Department of Justice found Microsoft guilty of
being a monopoly and that it has used monopolistic practices to stifle
competition and as a result many companies perished, Microsoft must pay a
substantial price. The consequence must equal or nearly equal the effect of
the behavior. I do not feel that the proposed settlement in any way will
prevent Microsoft from continuing it's monopolistic practices. A new
settlement with teeth is needed. It must be fiscally and politically
painful. Otherwise, the DOJ is sending a bad message to the citizens of the
United States. Once again, if you have enough money, there are no real
consequences.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Dale DuVall
Eugene, Oregon
MTC-00023347
From: Michael Bolen
[[Page 27305]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a bad idea.
Michael Bolen
MTC-00023348
From: Alex Brotman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have quite a few issues with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft/DOJ
trial. I will only point out the one that I think would be part of a fair
punishment and allow for better competition in the Tech marketplace.
Microsoft has made some good products over the years and may do so in the
future. Some of these products save or transmit data in its own propreitary
format. This to me is one of the most damaging things about Microsoft and
its products. I would propose that for the next 5 years(at least if not
more) that Microsoft be forced to provide the specifications for its file
formats and its transmission protocols to a general committee. These
formats could then be used by competing companies to allow them to open
Microsoft documents or send data to a Microsoft server. This would
hopefully level the field and force each company to strive to deliver a
technically superior product and not rely on a file format to force
customers into upgrades and hold them in that chosen product. For example,
Microsoft produces a word processor called Word, part of Microsoft Office.
This program uses a format that is only known to Microsoft and therefore no
other program can have full interoperability with Word. If the format were
available for all to use then a program like WordPerfect or Star Office
could open and save documents in Word format. This would allow companies to
have a better choice in choosing a word processor and hopefully companies
would deliver better products.
I have talked with other IT professionals about this and they say that
Microsoft deserves to have this monopoly because they make good products. I
say--make the formats and protocols available to all and then let the
market decide who has better products. I shouldn't be trapped into using a
certain product just because it has a special format. That to me is the
biggest part of Microsoft's monopoly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alexander Brotman
MTC-00023349
From: total fitness
To:
microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov,activism(a)moraldefense* * *.
Date: 1/24/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing regarding the Department of Justice's anti-trust case against
Microsoft.
I have watched in dismay as the U.S. Government, whose constitutional duty
it is to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, has zealously pursued one of
the most productive individuals in U.S. history- Bill Gates, and his
company Microsoft.
One of the Department of Justice's rationalisations for its crusade against
Microsoft is that the company has engaged in ``anti-competitive''
behaviour that has ``hurt consumers''. I find this accusation
ridiculous. Exactly who are all these wounded consumers? I have been
happily using, and benefiting from, Windows 98, with Internet Explorer, on
my computer for the last two years. Microsoft's products have greatly
enhaced my productivity and made my life a lot easier. I certainly do not
feel ``hurt'' in any way by Microsoft! Neither do my family and
friends who enjoy the benefits of Gate's innovations. Evidently, neither do
millions of others around the world who have purchased, and continue to
purchase, Microsoft products of their own choice and free will. If the
Department of Justice is truly concerned with eradicating anti-competitive
behaviour, then it should swiftly get out of the way of those who benefit
America and the rest of the world- dynamic, competitive producers and
innovators, like Microsoft- and let them do what they do best, free of
unprovoked co-ercion. Microsoft should only be the subject of legal action
if it can be shown that it has used force or fraud in its dealings with
others. I have not seen a skerrick of evidence to suggest this is the case.
It is actually the government who has initiated force against Microsoft. It
appears the Microsoft case was initiated by competing companies, who,
unable to compete on their own merits, lobbied the government to co-
ercively restrain Microsoft in order to level the playing field. If these
companies want an increase in market share, they should do it not through
Government favours, but by appealing to consumers with more competitive
offerings and innovations.
The Government's anti-trust stance is not untainted by hypocrisy, either.
The U.S. Postal Service IS a true monopoly- it enjoys a priviledged
position in the market by virtue of government edict. It is not subject to
competition from other firms who would no doubt be more than willing to
supply consumers with alternative provision of mail services. However I am
unaware of any pending anti-trust action against The U.S. Postal Service.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Colpo.
MTC-00023350
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31pm
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,
Tom Donahue
255 Colonial Circle
Vacaville, CA 95687-6708
MTC-00023351
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
6601 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,
Robert Madeya
803 Carmel Dr.
Belen, NM 87002-7236
MTC-00023353
From: Charles wyatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30pm
Subject: I disagree with the antitrust settlement as it stands.
Microsoft IS a monopoly.
No question there. And their territorial business practices DO hurt
competition. Example: Bungie Software, makers of PC games were bought by
Microsoft so that they would have the rights to the groundbreaking game
HALO so that it would be a premier title on their X-Box platform. They had
the money and power to buy a whole company for one piece of software which
has yet to be released to PC as it was originally intended. An addendum
should be added that Microsoft must turn over ALL of it's source code for
Windows for review. And give the government the right to change it and use
it for government use. There are so many security flaws that other foreign
governments have banned the use of Windows in their government offices.
Might Microsoft be keeping tabs on the Government through its own holes?
Microsoft should be barred from any further company purchases, either
directly or through a third party. Also they should be prevented from
starting up a spinoff company during that time period.
Charles Wyatt
[[Page 27306]]
MTC-00023354
From: Gen LaGreca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to state that I oppose any action taken by the Justice Department
against Microsoft as a so-called monopoly. Only government force can create
a monopoly by legally restricting entry into a field through regulations,
e.g., the US Postal Service and the Medallion cabs of New York City (the
latter restriction of competitors being the reason for the $45 cab fare to
go 8 miles from LaGuardia Airport to Coney Island!). It is NOT a monopoly
if a company outperforms its competitors in a climate of free competition.
When is the government going to stop meddling in our economic affairs? If
business don't produce (farming), we give them subsidies for not making
anything. If businesses overproduce (Microsoft), we shoot them down. It's
time to end this arbitrary meddling which limits our freedom of choice and
a company's freedom to operate. I say laissez faire--LEAVE IT ALONE!
Yours truly,
Genevieve LaGreca
Chicago
MTC-00023355
From: Dana Lee Ling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:35pm
Subject: Comments on settlement
I think ultimately technology will outrace the courts on this matter. Any
proposed settlement should have sufficient teeth to prevent Microsoft from
engaging in non-competitive practices, level the playing field, and
actively encourage competitors. That said, the industry will likely render
any settlement moot. Compare, for example, the sudden and explosive rise of
open source software for Internet servers to the sudden conversion to TCP/
IP and Internet protocols in the late 90's that led to the virtual death of
software giant Novell. Sure, Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. But
the arrival of Apple onto the Unix desktop scene is evidence that if a
level field is assured, then others can compete and today's software giant
is tomorrow's dust bin occupant. Even Microsoft is subject to the markets
it created. In the early years of Linux Microsoft said the operating system
was not a significant player and that there would never be a version of
Microsoft Office for Unix. Now we have Office V.x that runs under BSD Free
Unix on the new Macintosh OS X. In some sense, time and technology will do
more damage to Microsoft than any legal settlement.
Dana Lee Ling
[email protected]
MTC-00023356
From: Christopher Heiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:35pm
Subject: comment on proposed MS/DOJ settlement
I remember a conversation that I had with a friend about five years ago. He
was talking about how he didn't dislike Microsoft, and that the new
operating system of the time (Windows 98) was a real improvement over the
previous version. While this friend was in fact an avid fan of the Apple
Macintosh, he did not share the typical anti-Microsoft fervor that seems to
be the norm for a Mac user. He saw Microsoft as getting progressively
better, and thought that objections to the company and/or their software
were founded primarily on people who were purists and did not understand
the reality of the computer industry as an economic machine. I argued with
him for a few hours as we drove around the Virginia countryside. The gist
of my argument was, and still is:
1) Microsoft has a monopoly
2) Microsoft uses this monopoly to force the entire computer industry to
use unstable, poorly-engineered, insecure, and generally inferior software
through blatant campaigns of fear, extortion, and bullying
3) This is ultimately bad, as sooner or later another company will produce
a superior product, and chances are that this product will come from
outside the US where Microsoft can exert the greatest influence on its
surroundings
4) Regardless of the future, it is patently clear to anyone in the industry
that Microsoft hampers innovation in a major way, which affects not only
the computer industry but in fact the entire American economy As someone
involved in the investment community of Silicon Valley, I can assure you
that there is always a major fear of investing in any new company that is
directly or indirectly competing with Microsoft. While this may be a
reality for entrepreneurs, it does not help matters when the US Department
of Justice seems complicit with Microsoft in preserving and extending this
monopoly without any regards for the consequences nor punishments for
flagrant violations of US antitrust law. The United States version of free
market economy must deal with companies that abuse their monopoly power
with severe and meaningful penalties. Any settlement that does not force
Microsoft to pay dearly for its transgressions or does not make a
significant effort to prevent future transgressions with powerful laws is
worthless. -ch
MTC-00023357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:34pm
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,
Roger Hudson
6 Optima
San Clemente, CA 92672
MTC-00023358
From: Gary Ce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:37pm
Subject: Missing the Crucial Consideration
Your Honor,
The frivolous and anti-free-enterprise case and defences being made
regarding the activities of Microsoft are causing the more serious
``offence'' to be missed. Effective application of the Microsoft
Windows License Agreement requires that copies of the operating system
previously legally purchased may as well be disposed of when old hardware
is disposed of because re-use on new equipment is prohibited. This is
tantamount to saying that the engine in your old car may not be re-used in
a different car. If Intel were to follow this rule with processors, or IBM
with hard drives, there would be an uproar. Where is the uproar? This seems
to me to be an indefensible application of a purchase agreement. If it is
not legal, the public should be so informed and free to seek damages. If it
is legal, you or anyone who can must move to strike such a law or the
already thin illusion of free enterprise in America become even more thin.
Look for industry-wide collusion in the above because the beneficiaries are
Microsoft and the hardware vendors et al. Here is how it works;
- Users are never satisfied with the speed of computing equipment over all.
(by this I mean real world benchmarks of the entire computing experience,
not simply ``boot time'' or ``screen re-draw'' or
``hard drive spindle speed'' and dozens of other terms and tests
that have no net meaning).
- Hardware vendors seem to offer a remedy via the purchase of new hardware.
- New hardware generally comes with new Microsoft operating systems.
- The new operating system always uses more hardware resources to deliver
the same computing experience. (there are very few ``new''
applications for computers that are actually new. Most things we do with a
new computer are the same things we have been doing for a while, we get the
new computer in hopes that it will ``go faster''.)
- The public hunger for computing equipment that allows more efficient use
of time is not satiable in this scenario.
- Thus the consumer or corporate buyer heads dutifully and with
anticipation to the store to ``upgrade'' on a regular basis all
software and hardware, yet other than trivial user interface enhancements,
all those billions spent don't actually amount to a better computing
experience.
- Those of us consultants and professionals who get hired to make this
stuff all work more quickly, are not allowed to use the best choice when it
comes to operating system (for example Windows 95 on a modern computer)
because Microsoft would have us believe there is no legal way to use their
better historical products on newer
[[Page 27307]]
equipment, and our clients have little interest in being the test case to
challenge the mighty Microsoft.
This cycle seems set to continues without abatement even though
technological accomplishment in the economy as a whole is advancing
exponentially. Failure to focus on this strange little industry collusion
would be a mistake if the point of your trial is to improve the lot of the
American public with regards to their relation with Microsoft.
In summary, I believe Microsoft has changed the world for the better. Their
products are consistently better than the alternative in most categories.
If the disingenuous nature of their licensing agreements I have pointed out
here could be remedied, all our efforts of late might not be for nothing.
Sincere Regards,
Gary Chernipeski
CC:wes
cook,[email protected]@inetgw,Ste...
MTC-00023359
From: Tim Boester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the United States Department of Justice:
Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such, it should be made certain that it
cannot use its dominance in operating systems to take control of other
parts of the software industry. Specifically, Microsoft should be told to
allow users the ability to use open source software in lieu of Windows and/
or other pre-loaded software that comes on PCs. In order to help enable
this action, Microsoft should be forced into opening up its APIs, not just
for the short term, but for the long term. Until Microsoft joins with the
rest of the software industry in embracing industry standards, Microsoft
will continue to leverage its operating system monopoly to gain control of
other software arenas.
Thank you
- Tim Boester
Graduate student, Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Wisconsin-Madison
MTC-00023360
From: Ken Humphries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:33pm
Subject: On the subject of the Microsoft settlement
I normally don't send letters to government agencies, but I feel that to
not put my two cents worth on this issue, it would be a big mistake on my
part.
I have been in the computer industry since the early eighties, and I was
around when Microsoft was a company that produced reasonable quality
products for a reasonable price. Somewhere along the way (around the time
that Office was released,) the company changed its business philosophy,
they started bullying companies, and if you crossed them or you were in an
area of the marketplace that they wanted to expand into, they would attack.
This has included bullying or tempting resellers to not sell competitive
products, stealing ideas & code, hiring away employees, buying a
company that has a competitive product, then give it away for a fraction of
the cost (often free and more recently bundled as a part of the Operating
System.) This strategy has effectively stifled most companies from
competing directly with Microsoft. Most companies scurry around the edges
of Microsoft, praying that Microsoft doesn't target their niche next.
Microsoft marketing and their lawyers will tell you that this is the way
the industry works. Every industry leader does these things. That
innovation and better products are why they dominate. I can safely tell you
that this is not true. Most of the ``Industry leaders'' that they
talk about were driven effectively out of the business, because Microsoft
controlled the platform that all of these products ran on. Wordperfect and
Lotus were once the #1 word processor and spreadsheet programs on the
market, until Microsoft released Office, which cost less than either and
was the only product that worked on the then new Windows 3 software (The
reason being that Microsoft developed Office at the same time as Windows
and didn't allow access to the Windows development team to their
competitors.) Now, there is no effective competitor for this product, and
they charge an arm and a leg for the product now (I picked up the original
Office for $99, now it costs $279, and that's an upgrade price.)
As for this case, Microsoft buys a small developer that has a web browser,
because it wants to get into the Internet business. The browser wasn't that
good, but Microsoft put their name on it and started giving it away for
free. The #1 browser at the time was Netscape, which was charging about
$40 for their browser. Even after throwing a large design team to work on
their browser, adding features to the product and starting the
``Browser Wars'', most users still didn't flock to Microsoft's
browser, they then decided to include it in Windows 95 as a standard
feature when they released an update. Why buy a product, when you get one
free, integrated in the software? (especially when most machines that you
can buy has this updated version of Windows 95 included.) Strangely enough,
Netscape, having been forced to give away their software for free as well,
lost its market share and Microsoft dominated the browser market. Now,
they've put Microsoft Windows specific elements into the browser (to
reinforce their OS monopoly) and charge more for their operating system
(Windows 95 cost $79 and now Windows XP costs $199.)
There are other examples, like when Microsoft forced Windows on computer
manufacturers, but I wanted to keep this short and concise. I know that the
Sherman Act was designed to keep companies that have a monopoly from trying
to exploit that advantage to make a bigger monopoly, and I think it's safe
to say that this fits Microsoft's actions to a T. If I thought the
settlement arranged between Microsoft and the Justice department would
control Microsoft, I wouldn't even have sent you this letter. I'm just
letting you know that as an insider, I still see the same business tactics
today, that I saw before the trial. I also know that if all you are going
to do is give Microsoft a light slap on the hand and put an impotent group
of observers to try to control a company that's company culture is
``Power wins'', especially with them sitting on a $40 billion
dollar cash reserve and growing, what do you think will happen? If they
aren't punished properly, all we will get is more Microsoft monopoly
products in more markets that cost more and work less.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Ken Humphries
Sr. Project Manager
Quarium, Inc.
[email protected]
(408) 246-1585
``Change is inevitable.''
AND
``Change can be either good OR bad.''
MTC-00023361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:34pm
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,
Mariann Green
980 N Boehning Ave
Indianapolis,, IN 46219
MTC-00023362
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:35pm
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.
[[Page 27308]]
Sincerely,
1108 Fairview Drive
La Canada, CA 91011-2359
MTC-00023363
From: Tracy Rupp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39pm
Subject: MicroSoft Opinion
I believe the Microsoft antitrust is highly important if not central to the
free enterprise and competition debate with regard to the ``computer
revolution''. My qualifications are that I have been using the
personal computer for some twenty years, have been an enrolled student of
computer science for over two years. I'm 56 years old and a stockholder of
MicroSoft.
I am concerned that the near monopoly that MicroSoft has on most aspects of
popular computing is detrimental to the advancement of commerce and
technology. While Microsoft does innovate, the pace of innovation has been
slowed and quality has suffered due to their overwhelming influence. Prices
remain higher than would be the case if a more competative environment
prevailed. I feel like the government case against Microsoft soften when
the economy turned down. I hope expediency will not drive this monumental
interpretation of the law in this challenging new era. I lose money on my
MicroSoft stock, but, am still in favor of a critical stance against
Microsoft.
Thank you,
Tracy Rupp
MTC-00023364
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:36pm
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,
Edward Gatewood
820 Virginia St., #202
Dunedin, FL 34698-6746
MTC-00023365
From: Semach, Dave
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please consider the following regarding the Microsoft case.
Thank you for your time.
Dave
[[USAGSemach David 1020 0122.doc]]
MTC-00023365 0001
David Semach
15515 186th Ave NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of
Justice. It is fair and reasonable, and will bring this case to a close.
Microsoft has agreed on several matters that extend well beyond the issues
of the lawsuit. They have agreed not to retaliate against computer makers
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows operating
systems. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating system
products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms. They have
agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors various
interfaces that are internal to Window's operating system products. These
are only some of the issues of the settlement that I would call above and
beyond the call of duty. No more action should be taken at the federal
level. I agree that the settlement is in the best interest of the people,
the industry and the economy. Further litigation would only prolong a drawn
out lawsuit that was not necessary from the start.
Let's get this behind us and move on with other important business.
Sincerely,
David Semach
0023365--0002
MTC-00023366
From: Tim Weaver--InfoTech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41pm
Subject: Forced application bundling
Dear Madams and Sirs:
With 30 years of computer experience as buyer, user and IT consultant, my
observations are both positive and negative regarding Microsoft's market
power and subsequent abuses. Point #1--I have prospered because
Microsoft products required added support which I provide but I am also
offended that functions that should work do not; thus requiring the
customer to hire me to do extraneous tasks-- well known security flaws
comprise just one example. Point #2--More egregious abuse however
shows not only at Microsoft but also at related ``reseller''
companies such as Dell. When a friend configured a personal computer system
he asked me why it was so expensive when the hardware alone was advertised
as ``below $700''. As it turns out Microsoft Office Suite was
included as a default and my friend was unable to ``deselect''
this option. This alone added $300+ dollars to the overall cost.
The issue is not only that this was a ``forced'' added-on but
also that no other office suite is available. Point #3--Finally as
a shareholder of other public companies (not of Microsoft) I am aghast that
Microsoft holds over $36 billion in cash and refuses to pay a dividend in
spite of their obligation to their shareholders.
Thank you consideration of my comments.
Timothy M Weaver
415-550-0525
MTC-00023367
From: Dan Lynch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft behavior
Dear Judge,
Since it is now officially recognized that Microsoft has a monopoly with
respect to the operating system of the hugely dominant computer
architecture of Intel's it is necessary to be sure that they do not use
that monopoly to leverage into related areas of computer software. They do
it all the time. I would too, if no one stopped me from doing it. I believe
you are the one to do the stopping.
Thank you for listening.
Dan Lynch
Los Altos Hills CA
MTC-00023368
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:39pm
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,
Sandra Dau
16811-256th Ave
Spirit Lake, IA 51360
MTC-00023370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42pm
Subject: PFJ for Microsoft
Your Honor,
I'm concerned about the proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case,
and I urge you to reject it. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, yet the
proposed final judgment allows them to keep vitually all the illegal
profits they've amassed over the years. Furthermore, there's no provision
to protect the software (and hardware) industry from Microsoft's strong-
arm tactics in the future. The monopoly is allowed to stand with very
little punishment. In fact, the proposed final
[[Page 27309]]
judgment would amount to a government mandate of the monopoly.
Please reject the proposed final judgment for its serious shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Michelle B. Fang
41 Lantern Circle
Stamford, CT 06905
(203) 329-0366
MTC-00023371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:40pm
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,
Hank Jonson
6812 Wycliffe Ave`
Waxhaw, NC 28173
MTC-00023372
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:41pm
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 Meyers
6660 Loblolly Drive
Huber Heights, OH 45424
MTC-00023373
From: Steve Scherf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am compelled to comment to you that I feel the proposed Microsoft
settlement with the DOJ is insulting and wholly insufficient. It will do
nothing to stop the antitrust activities of Microsoft, and amounts to even
less than a slap on the wrist. It is unfortunate that the DOJ does not seem
to understand the issues from a technical standpoint. If the DOJ did truly
understand the issues, it would be clear that there need to be strong rules
instructing Microsoft to publish critical application interface information
for would-be competitors. What does this mean exactly? Microsoft controls
everything from the operating system to the web browser to the office
applications people use on a daily basis for writing documents, sending and
receiving email, and so on. These form the core, the vast majority, of the
software used by the computer-using public. Because Microsoft controls
these facets of the computer, there is no need for them to disclose the
proprietary interfaces used by each piece of software in order to
interoperate. In fact, in order for them to maintain this control, they
have a great need NOT to disclose these important interfaces to the public.
This effectively forms a roadblock for any would-be competitor who wishes
to produce a competing application. Netscape is a prime example. It is
incapable of doing many of the things that Microsoft's browser,
Internet Explorer, is capable of doing. Netscape lacks the necessary ties
with the operating system and its components for it to have the same
capabilities as IE. It would be a daunting task, and possible illegal
thanks to the DMCA, for someone to reverse-engineer the interfaces
necessary to make a browser with the same capabilties as IE.
I feel that the original solution proposed by Judge Penfield Jackson was a
logical, just, fair and correct solution to the problem. I understand that
such a solution is now quite unlikely, unfortunately. Short of that, I
still feel that Microsoft must be made to disclose all programming
interfaces to their software that are necessary for competitors to make
products with at least as much functionality as Microsoft's own. Microsoft
must be required to make full disclosure of all programming interfaces to
the public, free or for a nominal charge to cover the cost of publication.
Also, they should be required to publish updated information in a timely
fashion whenever said programming interfaces are enhanced or modified in
any way. I would consider this to be the minimum solution to the problem.
Other steps should probably be taken as well, such as rules to curtail
their predatory practices. However, I consider what I've said here to be
the primary action that should be taken in the absence of more sweeping
ones.
Regards,
Steve Scherf
[email protected]
(510) 849-CDDB
http://www.gracenote.com
MTC-00023374
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42pm
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,
Timothy C. York
7139 Hampstead Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46256-2315
MTC-00023375
From: William Sears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I do not agree that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust
trial is acceptable. It neither punishes them significantly for past
actions nor does it inhibit their ability to commit similar offenses in the
future.
Microsoft will continue to be able to abuse their current monopoly and will
have no effective deterent from doing so since the scale of their
punishment is insignificant compared to the gain they have made on their
actions. The smart business move on their part would be to repeat the kinds
of actions in the future to maximize their profits. They can easily pay for
the minor punishment out of the vast treasure chest that they can amass by
continuing.
Respectfully,
William Sears
8313 Beacon Ridge Pl.
Fort Wayne, IN 46835
MTC-00023376
From: Janet Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
MTC-00023377
From: Brad Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I stand in opposition to the proposed settlement between the DOJ and
Microsoft. I believe the settlement is far too lenient, and will in no way
act as a deterrent to current and future anticompetitive practices by
Microsoft.
As a college student pursuing a degree in Computer Engineering, I shudder
to think
[[Page 27310]]
that in a few short years, I may very well enter a job market dominated by
a single company. A company that controls what type of hardware I'll be
developing for. A company that controls what type of software I use. A
company that dictates what standards I can (theirs) and cannot (open
standards) use. A company trying to control the freedom of the Internet
revolution. A company that will have squandered out all but the last faint
flickers of competition. A company not unlike IBM once was. Rather then
fumbling around trying to express the exact reasons for my discontent with
the proposed settlement, I would like to voice my support for a man whom I
think has already said it best. Dan Kegel has put together a very detailed
and extensive list of the problems with the current settlement, and I agree
with him 100 percent. The document to which I am referring is located at:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Sincerely,
Brad Smith
Computer Engineering Major
Georgia Institute of Technology
MTC-00023378
From: Sis Hartgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft invades my computer making it
difficult to use anything but Microsoft. I resent the intrusions and wish
there were an alternate platform to use rather than Windows.
Microsoft has limited the options which could have been available to
consumers.
Thank you for allowing the public to have some input into your
deliberations.
Florence M. Hartgers
MTC-00023379
From: David Aufox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice, As a Graphic/ Web designer, I'd like to
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
Throughout it's existence Microsoft has chosen coercion and subversion over
invention, originality and innovation. Microsoft has a history of bullying
and subterfuge in its efforts to gain market share over rivals like
Netscape and Corel/Novell (WordPerfect) who offer competing products. Never
before has there been a company that manufactures such sub par products,
yet at the same time controls such a stranglehold on the market that a
person is unable to find a practical and realistic solution or alternative
that avoids using that company's products in the course of daily business.
Microsoft time and time again has gotten away with illegal behavior with
nothing more than a slap on the wrists. Even after they have been legally
found to be a monopoly, they still claim they are not and even try to use a
settlement to gain market share in the one market they do not control,
education. I fear that this might not change after the current legal
battles with Microsoft over and done with, the Proposed Final Judgment has
many issues, which I feel, are not in the public's best interest. The
Proposed Final Judgment does not take into account windows compatible
operating systems. It also contains specifications so narrow they are
misleading. One example is the Proposed Final Judgment mandates Microsoft
must release its secret API's but defines API's so strictly many API's
especially more of the important ones are not covered by the definition.
Most of all the Proposed Final Judgment does not take into account
Microsoft's current and actions and products it is trying to develop for
the future.
I feel that if action isn't taken now against Microsoft for the illegal
crimes it has committed and been found guilty of, the Department of Justice
will find itself fighting the same law suit several years from now on the
same issues but a different offending Microsoft product because Proposed
Final Judgment didn't not take future growth and products into account
while still allowing Microsoft to function as a company.
Please take these and all the other issues concerning the Proposed Final
Judgment into account before acting on it. Thank you very much for you
time.
-David Aufox
MTC-00023380
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:43pm
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,
Robert Bishop
116 westviewway
Eatonton, GA 31024
MTC-00023381
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:43pm
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,
Mike Dragoun
65657 Kenilworth Rd.
Lakeville, IN 46536
MTC-00023382
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:44pm
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,
Loretta Keplar
2710 Emmet Drive
Logansport, IN 46947
MTC-00023383
From: Mark Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to write a note expressing my concerns with the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft case. In my reading about this settlement from
many different news sources I cannot see that this proposal would have any
effect at all on the behavior of Microsoft. It does little to nothing to
rectify the damage done to the computer marketplace by Microsoft's
anticompetitive actions. Unfortunately, it is so weak that it appears to
almost endorse their abusive actions.
Mark Tucker
Consultant
Clifton Park, NY
MTC-00023384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27311]]
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,
Robert Solum
226 So. 5th St. W.m
Missoula, MT 59801
MTC-00023385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:45pm
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,
carolyb stokum
1421 s quebec
tulsa, OK 74112
MTC-00023386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time to move on. Microsoft has created tremendous software tools
which have standardization and greatly enhance productivity. As a member of
the pre boomer generation, I did not have exposure to PCs and software
until I had been in the workforce 20 years. It is hard enough going from
one application to another without having to remember separate and
different ways to do things because of different vendors, or to figure how
out to make one software package compatible with another, or to figure out
what computer accessories you need do perform your task.
Microsoft has been found guilty of some incorrect behavior and has reached
a settlement with the Dept of Justice. The settlement is very generous.
Right or wrong, Microsoft has already paid dearly in many ways, and they've
learned a lesson. This settlement should be implemented and the court
action closed. Competitors and greedy plaintiffs who see deep pockets
they're hoping to pick should not be allowed to do so. Their cases should
be thrown out as frivolous and greedy. The courts have ruled, and a
settlement has been agreed upon. It is time to get on with it so this case
can be closed and companies directly and indirectly involved can focus
again on business and competition.
L.E. Carrier
MTC-00023387
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:46pm
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,
Janis A. Ayers
2405 Queenaire Ln.
Modesto, CA 95350-1939
MTC-00023388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47pm
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,
Sandra Alcini
3827 Lake George Rd.
Dryden, MI 48428
MTC-00023389
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47pm
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,
Ron Wolff
32800 Amrhein
Livonia, MI 48150
MTC-00023390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:47pm
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,
Ruth Sherlock
140 Sso. Dolliver Spc.#02
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
MTC-00023391
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:48pm
[[Page 27312]]
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,
Marvin Tuomala
15832 Clarendon Street
Westminster, CA 92683-6939
MTC-00023393
From: Brian Redding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I don't believe that the current proposed settlement will prevent Microsoft
from continuing to use their illegally gained monopoly position to prevent
competition in the personal computer operating system industry. I endorse
all of the remedies outlined in Mr. Dan Kegel's open letter in which I have
co-signed (located at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html).
Please review this letter as well as other letters from people in the
software and personal computer industry on possible alternative remedies
that lowers the entry barrier for additional choices in personal computer
operating systems. This can only be accomplished if the Windows APIs are
publicly released and licensed royalty free. To ensure the complete set of
APIs are released, requiring ports of Microsoft middleware (including
Microsoft Office) to open sourced operating systems including emulators
like WINE for linux would ensure that Microsoft could not keep important
APIs proprietary. This is the only way to lower the entry barrier for
competing personal computer operating systems. This would begin to level
the playing field after Microsoft has illegally , based on the findings of
fact, manipulated the personal computer operating system market in their
favor. Thank you for your time.
Brian A. Redding
Software Engineer
Champaign, IL
MTC-00023395
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:48pm
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,
Charles Alcini
3827 Lake George Rd.
Dryden, MI 48428
MTC-00023396
From: G4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Being soft on Microsoft in this case is equivalent to being soft on Nazi's
at Nuremberg. This monopoly must end.
MTC-00023397
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
It is time to let the microsoft settlement go forward. The constant legal
action is producing a hardship upon consumers. To penalize an innovative
company in this way is grossly unfair.
Archie C. Prevatte
MTC-00023398
From: Clifford H. Readout, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:53pm
Subject: Decision
Your Honor,
Microsoft's proposed settlement (to provide hardware and software for a
market they do not dominate) is simply a proof of its corporate philosophy:
misuse every possible avenue to eliminate competition. Find a suitable
penalty, one that actually will undo Microsoft's unjust and illegal
activities. Make a way for Microsoft to justly compensate its victims, both
corporate and individual. Suggest that it buy and give away a few billion
dollars worth of Apple hardware and software to market segments Microsoft
has dominated and listen to it scream of the injustice! Not wanting merely
to complain, allow me to suggest two things:
1. a break-up of Microsoft into two parts, one marketing the Operating
System, the other everything else;
2. the purchase and free distribution of Apple computers to non-profit
agencies, up to a total expense you determine to be just.
For Justice,
Clifford H. Readout, Jr.
Director
The Foundations Forum
26 Somersville Road
East Longmeadow, MA 01028
413-525-2233
MTC-00023399
From: Anne Reece
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
If the Department of Justice does not force Microsoft to allow free and
open competition in the computer and internet arena, where are the people
who have home computers supposed to turn for choices in the software they
purchase?
Anne Reece
596 Old Mill Rd
Lampe, MO 65681
MTC-00023400
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:52pm
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,
john Geraghty
2715 Boardwalk #917
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
MTC-00023401
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:52pm
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.
[[Page 27313]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Johanna Rakhshani
9142 Pioneer Dr.
H.B., CA 92646
MTC-00023402
From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dont let microsoft get away with their business practices. Many people
believe that microsoft bought it's influence in the judicial system in the
latest settlement. Prove those people wrong and force microsoft to offer
refunds to customers who bought computers with its operations system. Some
computers were pre loaded with windows and the buyer has to remove it to
put alternate enviornments together.
Prevent them from forcing users to load their web browser, media player,
and msn.
MTC-00023403
From: Paul Martucci
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is unfair and serves no justice
MTC-00023404
From: Brenda Womack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56pm
Subject: Actions of Software Companies Programs
My apologies but not being a lawyer I couldn't totally decipher the
language of the settlement but want to know if at any point in time this
action and others will prevent software companies from programing the
software to make changes to your PC without your knowledge or consent. In
the case of Microsoft software for MSN I recently received a complimentary
copy of Britannica Encyclopedia along with my tax software. I was not aware
that there was loaded a program on there that loaded MSN as my default home
page on my computer without my knowledge. When I went to load in the
connection to the Internet - which is Microsoft Internet Explorer (loaded
by Time Warner when I got my cable connection) I found that the load of the
Encyclopedia had change my default page in the software. I have also had
web pages that I connected to that once I made a selection I could not
change the selection to another choice such as a different sales agent.
This happened on going to the web page for Shaklee to look for a local
agent. I don't know if the agent caused this or the company but it was very
frustrating and took me a while to figure out how to clear it out.
I do feel you did the correct actions here as more competition does lead to
more choices and an improvement in the product for everyone. That is not to
say that standardization in some items doesn't improve things--such as
I wish we had standardized the phone systems as was done in Europe as it is
confusing to see 3 and 4 cell towers together because they each have their
own system. Thank you for reading this.
Brenda Womack
Loveland, OH
MTC-00023405
From: James Mays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:57pm
Subject: No Settlement
In regard to the proposed Microsoft settlement:
I believe that any settlement which allows Microsoft to establish itself in
a new market under the guise of a ``free'' donation of software
is misguided. Donation of Microsoft software is essentially a Trojan Horse,
ultimately forcing the recipients of those donations to either pay up or
force losing the utility of the software they receive.
Microsoft's real assets are its intellectual property. To force Microsoft
to open the source of some or all of the code to their products, under an
open source license, would allow the company to continue to conduct
business, but on a level playing field.
-Jim Mays
Stillman Valley, IL
MTC-00023406
From: Ryan Metz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am concerned about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. After
reviewing all of the different things that the company has done and seeing
no changes made in the corporate culture at Microsoft I do not consider the
settlement being proposed a solution to the problem. Microsoft has been
labeled a monopoly that used illegal means to keep themselves in that
situation. They have lied, cheated, and stomped out innovation that might
have competed with their products based on the merits of the technologies
involved every time it suited them to do so. I am writing this because I
was informed that you would take into consideration public reaction over
the case due to the Tunney Act. Please consider making it illegal for
Microsoft to force computer manufacturers to do whatever Microsoft wants
for the sole purpose of stamping out any new competition or innovation. I
think one of the main reason that the computer industry is stagnating right
now is that Microsoft has locked much of the country into its upgrade cycle
(and I'm not talking about the Windows XP licensing scheme) and there isn't
any reason for people to go out and buy new tech products.
Respectfully,
Ryan Metz
MTC-00023407
From: (042)(042)(042) Dave Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I work as an advanced IT standards developer and researcher at a multi-
national engineering company. I am, however, writing as a private citizen.
I would like to comment on the proposed settlement of the anti-trust suit
against Microsoft.
Microsoft's past behavior, as proven multiple times in court, including in
the case at hand, demonstrates its unwillingness to take any corrective
action, change its activities, or in any other way comply with legal
judgments except as specifically and strongly enforced.
If Microsoft were truly competing in the open market, based on the
technical strengths of its products, I would have no problem if the
majority of consumers freely chose its systems and tools. My concern is
that Microsoft, by becoming a virtual monopoly, and by engaging in anti-
competitive practices as a monopoly (the conclusions of the Court in this
case) stands opposed to both technical competition and free choice among
consumers.
Any settlement outcome from this case which does not provide real,
powerful, and punitive checks on Microsoft's anti-competitiveness, or which
does not prevent it from engaging in similar behaviors in the future, will
be a grave disservice to the industry and to consumers, and serve notice to
all corporations that our anti-trust laws can be circumvented as long as
you can afford the legal fees. Allowing Microsoft any control over the
remedial processes will be a similar disservice.
In terms of specific concerns over the settlement, I would like to include,
in its entirety, the petition to be submitted by Dan Kegel, which I have
signed, and which can be found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html,
and his more detailed essay at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
Finally, any monetary damages imposed upon Microsoft as a result of the
Finding of Fact by the Court ought to be collected as monetary damages, and
either added to the general fund of the Federal Government, or else
distributed in some fashion to consumers, who have borne the final brunt of
Microsoft's actions. Allowing Microsoft to administer the nature or
distribution of these damages (e.g., providing free software into markets
they do not presently control, or valuating contributed software or
hardware based on retail purchase price rather than actual cost) will again
provide no punishment to Microsoft, no relief of their past actions, and
may actually serve to further enhance Microsoft's monopolistic advantage.
Thank you for your time in reading these comments.
Sincerely,
David C. Hill
8149 S. Monaco Circle
Centennial, CO 80112
303-740-7054
[email protected]
MTC-00023408
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27314]]
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,
Roy Guinn
162 Carl Garrett Rd.
Lancing, TN 37770
MTC-00023409
From: Diamond Don SE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58pm
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft case
Hello:
This is one concerned citizen who wishes the Federal Government would quit
attacking Microsoft. I do not work for Microsoft, and I do believe that
Microsoft has already been subjected to more than enough of weak attacks
brought on by losers (Netscape et al). If you will remember, the market
slide began as part of the Clinton administration Microsoft witch hunt, so
now that those weak minded people are (hopefully) gone we can now let
things get back to normal, where success does not equate to a Federal
lawsuit.
Proudly we stand and may liberty reign!
Don Phillippi
9565 Business Center Drive, Suite G
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
MTC-00023410
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:55pm
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 Soulsby
894 Joseph Club Drive
Mableton, GA 30126-1656
MTC-00023411
From: Thomas Horan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/24/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Horan
12367 Sparta Ave. NW
Sparta, MI 49345-9785
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats
and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Thomas Horan
MTC-00023412
From: Mark Culverhouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I have a degree in computer science and over twenty years experience in the
software engineering profession. It grieves me to see this action by the
government against Microsoft. Microsoft's competitors seem to be using
politics, the government and the courts to prevent Microsoft from
continuing their long record of technical and business successes.
The anti-trust case seems to have no real consumers who say they have been
harmed. If the only software available to consumers came from Microsoft's
competitors, like Sun and Oracle, then no ``normal'' human beings
would be using computers yet (i.e., only programmers ;-)
I hope this action ends so that we can all get back to innovating,
competing and serving our customers first.
Thank you.
Mark Culverhouse
Spring Green, Wisconsin
CC:Mark Culverhouse
MTC-00023413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:56pm
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,
Evelyn Stebbins
311 Harrison St.
Marquette, MI 49855-3315
MTC-00023414
From: Todd Pytel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:00pm
Subject: Tunney Act comments
I am strongly opposed to the current settlement offered to Microsoft. The
Internet is based on a foundation of open standards. Microsoft has
repeatedly shown it's willingness to circumvent or modify these standards
to prevent meaningful competition and limit consumer choice. The currently
offered settlement does nothing to improve this situation. Please consider
a settlement that requires, at least, the opening of Microsoft's data file
formats and the unbundling of Internet Explorer.
Thank You,
Todd P. Pytel
Educator, Chicago Public Schools
MTC-00023415
From: Brian Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
If you won't enforce the findings of the Court, who will? If you won't
enforce a meaningful punishment upon a monoply, to whom can we citizens
turn?
The Enron debacle shows what happens when the Executive branch of the
government is in the pockets of corporate power. Is the Judicial branch in
the pockets of Microsoft?
The proposed settlement is unfair to consumers, and beneficial to
MicroSoft.
You *must* do better.
Brian A. Bauer
42 Linden Ave. #3
Somerville, MA 02143
[[Page 27315]]
[email protected]
MTC-00023416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:58pm
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 Favazzo
308 Resinwood Rd.
Moncks Corner, SC 29461-3523
MTC-00023417
From: Jerre Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft
We live in a whole new era and all the old laws that apply to the way
business operated than as to how business operates now are outdated and
needs to be rewritten! Most laws on the books regulating businesses were
passed after the big money people (That controlled oil, railroads, stock
market, and the banks) used that money to try and run this country! There
were even laws passed to limit the passing of wealth of these people to
other members of the family so as to limit the power of the wealthy. Did it
work? No! Only the way government controls business! The elective people
found ways to skirt around all the laws and created all kinds of ways to
keep the wealthy, wealthy!
Now the government is using these outdated laws to regulate the way new era
businesses operate! We have advance from the Stone Age though the
manufacturing age to the now age of technology! But the people in
government are still in the manufacturing age!
All these lawsuits against Microsoft (Using outdate laws) are crazy!
Microsoft created a new and better (user-friendly system) for computers
that is now being used worldwide and everyone is jumping on a bandwagon
suing Microsoft! Yes Microsoft built a better mousetrap (Using terms that
people stuck in the manufacturing era understand) and the world came
running to Microsoft door. Not with praise and graditude but with lawsuits!
Tandy was developing Deskmate using Microsoft MS.Dos system, Apple had an
operating system for their own computers, and even IBM had their own
operating system. Basically there needed to be a standard for a system that
could be handle all across the world and any maker of a computer could
install. Microsoft had the vision to develop such software and the return
is lawsuits! The Federal Government, State Governments and AOL are all
suing Microsoft! WHY? Because Microsoft built a better mousetrap and
everyone wants a share of the profits! Now most don't even have any
knowledge of why their filing a lawsuit except that the Federal Government
is suing Microsoft on outdated laws saying: ``Microsoft may be a
monopoly and needs to be controlled by the government!'' Now I ask
you: ``How many operating systems are there available for the use of
the people and computer manufacturers? ``Than how many computer
systems comes preloaded with software compatible with operating systems all
over the world? WITH NO EXTRA COST to THE BUYER OF THE COMPUTER! The
consumer is getting hundreds of dollars of free software (Furnished and
installed) that is compatible in ever nation on this earth!
The lawsuits are not about trying to control (As in the Robber Baron days)
a company that is out of control, But to sue to increase revenue for the
coffers! The same way states sued to be reimbursed for the cost of
providing medical benefits for smokers! Now we all know that 90% of all
that money want into the general fund and were used for everything but
tobacco related issues! The Lawyers all got rich and the people never saw a
penny of the money!
So what is the Government and State's trying to do to Microsoft? Break the
company up? Fine them? FOR WHAT? To extort money out of Microsoft for the
Lawyers to get rich and to put money in the coffers! After all the lawsuits
are settled what well be accomplished? More millionaire lawyers and larger
law firms with more dollars to sue more companys?
This nation needs to get off the ``SUE MICROSOFT'' kick and think
of ways to enhance the creativeness of people like Bill Gates and his
employees at Microsoft! The Governments and lawyers are always here but
they have never done anything to build trust and prosperity. All
Governments and lawyers have done is rob the great builders and innovators
for their own profit! The question is: ``Did Microsoft create a system
that disallowed other creative people access?'' The answer is NO! At
no time did Microsoft deny the use of the system software to anyone. What
Microsoft did was design a software product that had just about everything
a person would ever need to use a computer! For that the hounds are at the
door!
Jerre N. Fischer
18735 Midland Dr.
Shawnee, Ks. 66218
913-631-9242
MTC-00023418
From: Michael Cope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should be held accountable for their actions.
MTC-00023419
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm writing to express my distress that the proposed Microsoft settlement
does not appear to actually do anything to punish past behavior, and very
little to see that it does not occur in the future.
My own opinion is that Microsoft must be compelled to allow competition
with it's products on even ground, and that this means they should be
compelled to publish all technical specifications for how their products
inter-operate. For example, a competitor cannot at present hope to succeed
with a product that competes with Microsoft Word, because they first must
reverse engineer the file format that Word documents are encoded in, and
then there's no guarantee that Microsoft will not change the format for
future versions of MS Word (as they have many times in the past).
Microsoft has repeated maintained it's monopoly by threatening OEMs with
reprisals for supporting other companies software. To make reparations for
this, they should be compelled to make it easier for companies to compete
with them in the future. I hope we can all see through Microsoft's attempts
at wrapping itself in the flag on this issue. The future of the United
States and the US economy does not depend on amnesty for Microsoft's past
abuses: if anything, the opposite may be the case.
Sincerely,
Joseph M. Brenner
MTC-00023420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:59pm
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,
Thomas Cotti
4055 Hickory Tree Rd.
Saint Cloud , FL 34772
MTC-00023421
From: Paul Norris
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27316]]
Microsoft has show that time and time again, money can free you of breaking
the law. The continue every day to participate in Monopolistic acts while
their lawyers endlessly tie up issues from 5 years ago. Everyday they put
more people out of work, and bilk their customers (who really have no
choice anymore) for more and more money. Microsoft should be broken up and
forced to compete, rather than dictate and bully. MS is the Standard Oil of
our time and our economy now runs on computers.
Paul Norris IT Department Technician
Cunningham Field & Research Service, Inc.
(386) 677-5644 ext. 251
[email protected]
PGP [http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/
lookup?op=get&search=0xE7B32864] public key
MTC-22
From: Randy Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04pm
Subject: Comments re: proposed remedies for Microsoft Corporation
To whom it may concern,
My name is Randy Williams. As a long-time user of numerous computer
products and a network engineer by trade, I feel compelled to add my
comments to the thousands you've likely received. I've used Microsoft
products on the x86 platform for many years now, starting with early
versions of their DOS operating system, through the most recent versions of
Windows. I am also an avid user of other ``alternative''
operating systems (Linux, *BSD and other Unix varients) and platforms
(Sparc, VAX, Alpha). I've also used numerous associated software products
for network communications, both from Microsoft and other vendors. I feel
this lends my views some credence vis a vis the proposed settlement.
It is my opinion that the settlement is riddled with loopholes that prevent
the bulk of its pro-competitive measures from ever succeeding. Take for
example the concept of ``reasonable volume discounts'' for OEMs
when purchasing Microsoft products (Section III, part B). Essentially, this
allows Microsoft to continue their practice of bundling their Office suite,
Internet Explorer browser, Media Player et al. for free, or at steep
discounts. This shuts out other vendors of similar products from even
gaining a shot at OEM bundling, giving Microsoft a de facto monopoly in
these areas. This is simply not a penalty. Some vendors that have been
obviously wounded by Microsoft in these venues include Corel (makers of
WordPerfect), Lotus (makers of office productivity software like
1-2-3 Spreadsheet) and Netscape (makers of the popular web
browser).
I also have major concerns regarding section III, part E. As worded, this
provides a massive loophole, permitting Microsoft to gain an unfair
advantage over their competitors in development and use of existing and
future network protocols. Essentially, Microsoft is free to develop
proprietary protocols, and not release them to any 3rd party they feel is
not using their specifications for direct interoperation with a Windows-
based client or server. It also does not make these specifications freely,
or inexpensively, available, allowing Microsoft to charge exorbitant fees,
preventing all but the largest corporations to gain access to the
specifications. Inevitably, battles will be fought between Microsoft and
3rd party developers over licensing of these protocols, but for every day
that the specs are hidden, Microsoft gains a stronger foothold in network
operating systems and their management.
In other words, time is money, and by not specifically stipulating that any
and all developers can gain access to these protocol specifications for a
reasonable, agreed-upon set fee is to Microsoft's distinct advantage. This
also quietly allows Microsoft to retain proprietary specifications on
document formatting (DOC, XLS, PPT) and audio/video formats (WMV, WMA,
ASF). It is these specifications that run the ``killer apps''
that run on their monopoly operating system. Forcing Microsoft to open
these protocols would allow competitors some ability to compete on a level
playing field.
As a network engineer, the concepts of open standards are near and dear to
me. Protocols that have been openly shared amongst developers gave us the
ability to found the Internet as we know it. Free, open software that runs
these open protocols has run the Internet (BIND for name resolution, Apache
for web serving, Sendmail for email services). If Microsoft is able to
continue to grow their hold on network protocols by leveraging their
operating system monopoly, I fear it will damage the global Internet
irreparably.
I ask that you join the nine states that have disagreed with this
settlement proposol, and demand much stronger remedies, both in conduct and
financial penalties. Only then will Microsoft feel any pain from their
anti-competitive, illegal activties. I thank you for your time.
Regards,
Randy Williams
Arlington, MA
MTC-00023423
From: Ted Galloway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am very much opposed to the Microsoft settlement where they would give
computers to schools. Make them pay money and give it to the schools to buy
what they want. Don't lock the school in to ourdated computers and old
software that the schools will have to upgrade at a premium price from
Microsoft. Not only does this help Microsoft but it does great harm to
Apple. Apple has a strong market in the schools and Microsoft would take
this over.
If this goes through Microsoft will be laughing out-loud at the Justice
Department.
Ted Galloway
MTC-00023424
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:02pm
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,
John Poole
742--225th Ave
Monmouth, IL 61462
MTC-00023425
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:02pm
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
``elfare'' 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,
JOHN DEPEO
29272 N 64TH AVE
GLENDALE, AZ 85308-6670
MTC-00023426
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
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.
[[Page 27317]]
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,
GEORGE MAXWELL
214 N. KENNETH ROAD
BURBANK, CA 91501-1442
MTC-00023427
From: Jonathan Pitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MS is a CROOK!!!
BREAK THEM UP!!!!!
MTC-00023428
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
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,
Harold Gates
1443 Antone Ln.
Lewisville, TX 75077
MTC-00023429
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
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,
Harold Gates
1443 Antone Ln.
Lewisville, TX 75077
MTC-00023430
From: Matthew Toia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a concerned American citizen. I feel that the proposed Microsoft
settlement is a bad idea and must be revised. I ask that you please
consider Dan Kegel's comments.
MTC-00023431
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:02pm
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,
Barbara Carey
114 N Pasadena Avenue
Fallbrook, CA 92028-2033
MTC-00023432
From: Elmer Weissburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
Among the most stupid and treasonable actions of the USA has been the
unremitting attack on Microsoft, the single most civilized and high
intellectual contribution to mankind in human history. These
anticapitalistic actions stem from the New Democrats, who are the Old
Bolshevists in disguise. Their KGB leadership is Hillary and her scoundrel
husband William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Exceeded only in its virulence
against our republic by propagation of the myth that the cold war is over,
the attack on Gates has greatly harmed our economy, our philosopy of
individualism, and our wealth, the storehouse of power on earth. We must
attack first the terrorism at home before we expend our resources grinding
into sand the Afghan rocks and rag-heads.
Once we regain our sanity we can build fusion energy, convert to the metric
system, drill on the north slope, and hang traitors.
Truly yours,
E.S.Weissburg
MTC-00023433
From: atlas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
Subject: The settlement is a bad idea Microsoft needs to be punished, not
let off.
MTC-00023434
From: Matthew Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to express my dissatisfaction w/ the proposed settlement w/
Microsoft. I do not think that it gives any trouble to a company that has
consciously ignored the law and coerced the entire market into doing it's
will.
I think the proposed settlement will allow microsoft to gain a large
foothold in schools, and force out a major competitor in the education
market.
I also think that the company should have a stiffer penalty than one
billion dollars, with monitoring to ensure that the abuse of power does not
continue.
Matthew Barr
New York
Matthew Barr
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00023435
From: Chris Ahlstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft wants to win
About Bill Gates making ``security'' Job 1 ... Gates' new
``directive'' is just the next step in Microsoft's plan to hijack
the Internet and charge for every packet. Microsoft is well along on its
plans to convince government representatives, beaurecrats, and coporate CIO
officers who don't know any better that the ``Internet'' is
insecure (a believe that is reinforced by Microsoft's intentional lack of
security and ease of propagating worms and viruses in Windows). Microsoft
will now proceed to convince these folks that for the good of the country
and in order to make the ``Internet'' secure, proprietary
Microsoft networking protocols should be required. Legislation to mandate
this will be lobbied and passed. Just look at the DMCA as an example. The
result will be mandatory use of Microsoft proprietary networking protocols
which have to be licensed from Microsoft. Microsoft will then have achieved
it goal of being able to charge for every packet on the Internet.
Don't be fooled. Trust the software that started the Internet... UNIX
software.
Sincerely,
Chris Ahlstrom
Hope your day is as good as mine!
MTC-00023436
From: Jeffrey Zimmerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27318]]
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 am a United States citizen and, as a businessman (small private law
practice) an end-user of computer products. I have been using personal
computers as a business tool for over 15 years. I am experienced with
simple DOS command lines, Windows networking and much in between. I am
opposed to any resolution of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit that does not
break up Microsoft into several disparate companies.
Daily I experience limitations in my computer systems, many of which I can
attribute to the lack of viable alternatives to Windows. I have no
alternative operating systems which have appropriate applications for my
business, so I must use Microsoft products. The too-close relationship
between Microsoft's operating systems its the major applications means that
I must struggle to make my product fit Microsoft's model when both
intelligence and practice dictate otherwise. Most frightening of all is the
insistent sense of privacy invasion which comes from the constant demand my
Microsoft for ever-more information about me and my practice, matters I am
required by law, common sense and decency to maintain as confidential.
I am aware of no amount of monitoring which can ``manage''
Microsoft to make it less invasive, more creative and more flexible. Only
by re-creating the company itself to be on a par with other end-user
providers can I find the options that fit my needs and the needs of my
clients. Microsoft's surge towards uniformity has not produced a vibrant
office environment, it has produced Microsoft's invasive and expensive
environment; a diverse, competive field will be much more likely to produce
the quality tools and services.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Neil Zimmerman, Esq.
Sonoma County, California
MTC-00023437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:03pm
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,
Ron Gustas
6672 Duck Pond Ln.
Sarasota, FL 34240
MTC-00023438
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04pm
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,
Richard Edwards
7305 Paul Calle Dr
Plano, TX 75025
MTC-00023439
From: Ajit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To, Justice Department,
I just can not understand why all these bogus allegations have a place in
this volatile time of the world economy. Microsoft for long have worked
very sincerely and the developers there put there very best effort to
produce products of quality. And as a consumer I will always welcome any
innovative work done by anybody. If Microsoft give its loyal customers any
product free what's wrong in this. Even now Netscape is available free for
download. But still none of is interested to use it and its because of its
own demerits.
Simply it can not stand with IE. So I hope AOL to work more on products and
spend less time on disturbing others. If AOL have the self-respect and a
vision to stand in the market then better concentrate in producing good
products, not pull the legs of others.
Microsoft is not going to sue anybody because some people are distributing
Linux free and thus affecting Microsoft's window business. The reason
behind this is Microsoft believes in itself and had the determination and
courage to fight.
So I appeal to AOL not to follow a principle of Taliban to get everything
1000 years back where we will get only a backward society. Let innovation
follow its own way and help us for build our future. If AOL can not
understand this they may face a problem in future because anybody's
prosperity depends on MERIT not on just support of a court or anybody.
Thanks,
Ajit
MTC-00023440
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04pm
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,
Jeffrey Smith
232 Pindell Court
Lexington, KY 40515
MTC-00023441
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
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,
Lee Cummings
2908 S Orleans Ave
West Allis, WI 53227
MTC-00023442
From: Nathan Duffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
For the record, let it be known that I am unequivacally opposed to the
settlement as it
[[Page 27319]]
stands today. Microsoft will not be punished and they will continue to
bully and manipulate their allies, while crushing and otherwise playing as
dirty as possible with their competitors. The bundling and interoperability
concepts strike to the heart of the matter...
If Microsoft wants to make Operating Systems, fine, as long as they do not
unduly deny or impede access and functionality of competitors''
products to said operating system. Futher, said operating system must not
be arbitrarily changed to deny other potential competiors from producing
compatible and competitive products.
If Microsoft wants to make application software, fine, as long as they do
not unduly deny or impede access and functionality of competitors''
products to said application's data file structures. Said applications must
also retain backwards compatibility with Microsoft's own product, so as to
not force upgrading through planned obsolesence. These applications should
under no circumstances be required or unfairly enticed by Microsoft to be
installed by any vendor, OEM, or reseller, except at their own discretion.
Thank you for your time,
--Nathan Duffy
Plymouth, MN
MTC-00023443
From: Dave Doran-Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08pm
Subject: MS antitrust
Please take MS down.This is a company that much of the world looks to as a
bully. It's a company that squashes innovation for their own ends. MS and
it's products foster a ``do it like me or not at all'' ideal.
It's business practices accomplish this by keeping new ideas out of the
market, or taking the ideas for their own before anyone else can. It's
products do this by squashing things like creativity and free will. To some
people, structure and lack of choice mean comfort. To these people, the
idea of being controlled is appealing. Whoever is reading this email might
be like that. While I respect their way of thinking and right to do so, I
am not that way, and MS's business practices hinder me from doing it
``my'' way. Look at the recent Windows XP. Aside from borrowing
the X from Mac OSX (released not long before XP was officially named), XP
forces users to use MS products, and renders PCs useless if they don't.
When a user tries to install new software, XP runs checks to see if it's
``compatible''. While this is supposedly intended to create less
friction between software and hardware, it also allows MS to put software
on the list that it would rather be rid of. For instance, apple's quicktime
software, which is for playing media such as movies and music, could be
included, thus rendering it useless when someone tries to install it.
And forcing people to use MS products is not good, either. In Windows Media
Player (similar to quicktime), MP3 playback is stunted within the program.
When a user listens to an mp3 using WMP, it doesn't sound as good as it did
with earlier versions, or different programs. However, when the user
creates an audio file using Microsoft's own format, (which is only for
windows media player), the song sounds as it should. This makes people put
down what they had been using, or could be using, and start using MS's
stuff.
In contrast, Apple's Quicktime is the most compatible media player out
there. It can play essentially anything, and at the highest quality (can't
play WMP files of course). This is why macs are preferred in the music
industry. While Apple creates superior software, which is free, MS creates
shotty software, which is also free. Seems I'm missing one piece to this
puzzle, which is why would anyone put up with microsoft? I will leave that
to you, or to someone else. I don't think that people realize just how
powerful MS is. I understand that MS holds stock in several large
broadcasting networks. Can you say perfect propaganda machine? I am not
getting conspiracy theory here, but I think we can agree in the wake of
this Enron stuff, that big business should not be allowed to have so much
power. How could it ever be that Microsoft would need even more money? Why
don't they give up and take the fruit to the bank? How many billions is
Gates worth? Well thinking tax and inflation-free, just remember that if
you spent a million dollars a year, it would take 1,000 years to spend
$1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars). Thanks for giving us the chance to
speak up.
Dave DM
2001 College Grad, Art Major. Now working as a Personal Financial Rep for a
major bank.
MTC-00023444
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in opposition to the current antitrust settlement plan
envisioned by the Department of Justice against Microsoft Corporation. This
is one of the most significant antitrust actions ever undertaken by our
government, and after a thorough bench trial and subsequent appeals, the
federal government has come to a settlement agreement so weak that
countless businesses and 9 states, representing a significant portion of
this country's population, have stood in opposition to its many
questionable provisions.
One key problem is the settlement's limitation to companies ``in
business for profit.'' Open source software has the potential to be a
great threat to Microsoft, yet the settlement will not afford such tech
community efforts any protection from a company that has, on the facts,
been found to be an illegal monopolist. To say that an illegal monopolist's
actions only affect other profit businesses currently trying to compete
with it, is to ignore the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit that is a
foundation of our country and society. Microsoft has violated our antitrust
laws in its attempt to market a product for a device that is changing our
world. Very few matters are bigger or more important, yet this violation is
rewarded with a settlement agreement which appears to actually make future
control of the same market easier! The belief that the DOJ would actually
embrace such a ``punishment'' is incredulous. I urge you to
reject the current Settlement Offer and either allow the courts to fashion
the proper legal response as they see fit, or for you to develop a
realistic settlement plan that addresses this and the other legitimate
concerns raised during the public comment period.
Yours,
Karl
MTC-00023445
From: Brandon Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement lacks teeth; it is, in effect, a
forfeiture of the principles of the Sherman Act. While I advocate little
punishment towards Microsoft--their sustained success is important to
the emerging digital future -, it is absolutely imperative that competition
be insulated from further anti-competitive practices. I believe it was
Justice Oliver Holmes who observed that ``antitrust laws protect
competition, not competitors.'' That statement encompasses the danger
that Microsoft presents to the U.S. economy and innovation. Through strong-
arm and insidious tactics, the company has consistently destroyed any
entity that develops a product that might benefit society. The company uses
Windows to push Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer to push MSN, and
MSN to push Hotmail, and Hotmail to push .Net... As a consumer, I am afraid
of a corporation that spreads both horizontally and vertically by using its
currently held market position to crush those who innovate other markets.
The longer you let an animal bite you, the harder it is to rein it in when
it's grown fierce. In short, I genuinely fear that letting Microsoft escape
with little more than a slap on the wrist will not only fail to discourage
them from their suspect business activities, but actually encourage them
towards more dangerous behaviors that forestall the principles of a
capitalist market.
MTC-00023446
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not a Microsoft customer/client. I believe it is time to get off the
back of Microsoft and ``cease and desist'' in this settlement
business. Sincerely yours, Linda White
MTC-00023446 0001
Ken Klavonic
8080 Altacrest Drive
Concord, NC 28027-3301
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:
In accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Tunney Act (Antitrust
Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. ? 16), I am writing to express my
opposition to the
[[Page 27320]]
Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in the case of US et al. vs. Microsoft. I
believe that this settlement is fatally flawed and will not serve justice,
nor have the desired effect on the behaviors of Microsoft. Despite the
findings of the District court, the Appellate Court, and Judge Jackson is
Finding of Fact, the DOJ et al., having effectively won their long-running
case against Microsoft, has seen fit to accept a settlement that I feel
falls far short of a satisfactory conclusion to the case against Microsoft
in three crucial areas: Punitive action for past behavior, corrective
action to prevent future abuses, and oversight to ensure compliance with a
final order.
First, very little in the PFJ addresses any possible penalty for past
actions. The PFJ must serve as more than an edict from the courts to 3Go
thou and sin no more(2). It must send a message to Microsoft, and others
that would achieve success in the ways that they have, that there is a
penalty to be paid for blatant anticompetitive behavior in a free-market
economy. While I understand that a structural remedy is quite unlikely,
impractical, and probably undesirable in the current environment, I do feel
that the behavioral remedies should serve not only to prevent illegal
behavior in the future, but also to penalize the illegal behavior that has
already occurred. Second, I do not believe that the behavioral remedies
laid out in the PFJ, while well-intentioned, go nearly far enough to ensure
that Microsoft ends its illegal, anticompetitive practices in the future,
nor does it fully prevent new anticompetitive practices. Although time and
space do not allow for a point-by-point analysis of the PFJ here, I would
like to address a few of the items that strike me as cause for concern:
1. File formats are not addressed by the PFJ. Noted in the Findings of Fact
as being a barrier to switching from Windows to a competing operating
system, Judge Jackson states that there are considerable costs involved in
switching to a competing, non-Intel based platform and that 3It also
includes the effort of learning to use the new system, the cost of
acquiring a new set of compatible applications, and the work of replacing
files and documents that were associated with the old applications(2)(?20).
He also notes the 3Positive Network Effect2 that encourages the continuing
use of Windows and Windows-based applications because 3The large installed
base attracts corporate customers who want to use an operating system that
new employees are already likely to know how to use, and it attracts
academic consumers who want to use software that will allow them to share
files easily with colleagues at other institutions(2). (?39). If files
could be easily used within a variety of applications, without regard to
vendor, it would serve to reduce this barrier to choice.
It has long been a painful fact of productivity applications that files
written in one format, say Microsoft Word, may not necessarily be read
correctly in a competing product, StarOffice, for example, nor vice-versa.
Although a limited amount of compatibility exists, there are serious
shortcomings in that compatibility that prevents the successful use of a
competing product. For instance, tables, layouts and other more advanced
document formatting do not often translate correctly between competing
products. Because Microsoft Office is the defacto standard in office
suites, many competing products attempt to utilize Microsoftls file
formats.
However, because Microsoft treats these file formats as proprietary trade
secrets, it prevents any potential competitor from gaining the status of a
viable replacement for their products. Indeed, as long as Microsoft is
allowed to keep these file formats a secret, they have the ability to make
fundamental changes to them, rending the work of a competing product
worthless. Competitors could likely find themselves in an endless game of
catch-up as Microsoft changes the file formats of their office products.
Forcing Microsoft to disclose all the details of the file formats of their
various products, including, but not limited to Office, would allow
competitors to build competing office suites, and other software that
interoperates with Office, and helps to restore the competitive landscape
for these products. Unfortunately, the PFJ, in its current form, does
nothing to address this issue.
2. Likewise, the closed, proprietary nature of networking protocols within
Microsoftls products, while partially addressed, includes a rather large
exception in the PFJ (?III.J.1): 3No 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 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.2
This exception would allow Microsoft to exclude competing products at will,
regardless of the legitimacy of the competing product itself. There are a
couple of instances where this already occurs in the industry.
The first involves the Kerberos authentication protocol, developed at MIT
and designed to be an open authentication scheme for Unix-based systems.
Microsoft adopted the use of Kerberos in their Windows 2000 product,
beginning around 1997 during the early development of the Windows 2000
product. However, Microsoft utilized a portion of the protocol in an
undocumented fashion, preventing the proper interoperability of competing
systems with the Windows 2000 product. For years, Microsoft refused to
publish the details to allow this interoperability, despite intense
pressure from the industry. They later released this information, but in
such a way that expressly forbid the use of the specifications to create
interoperable systems, instead limiting the use of that information to peer
review of the security of their additions.
The second involves the file-sharing protocols native to Windows, SMB
(server message blocks). While a product does exist, named Samba
(www.samba.org [http://www.samba.org/] ), that allows limited
interoperability with Windows by Unix-based systems, the projectls efforts
are continually hindered by the ongoing refusal by Microsoft to make the
protocols public, and by Microsoftls repeated changes to the protocol
itself, occasionally preventing interoperability at all.
In both cases, and others, Microsoft could easily and legally continue to
block the efforts of its competitors by claiming that the protocols are
security-related and therefore disclosure is exempt under the terms of this
agreement.
Microsoft should be forced to publish the details of the protocols used on
the network by their products to ensure the possibility that competing
products can interoperate with Microsoft products. This would not require
Microsoft to reveal any trade secrets with regard to the source-code of
their products, and again, would serve to restore competition in the
industry. Unfortunately, again, the PFJ fails to do this, instead giving
Microsoft huge latitude in continuing their behaviors.
3. The PFJ defines APIls and Microsoft Middleware Products far too
narrowly. The PFJ defines APIls as 3the interfaces, including any
associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware running on a
Windows Operating System Product uses to call upon that Windows Operating
System Product in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating
System Product.2 (?VI.A). This definition fails to take into account the
various additional APIls that could be used by other applications, even
though they donlt necessarily qualify as 3Middleware2 products. A good
example of this is the Windows Installer APIs--these would not, in the
strictest sense of the definition, qualify for disclosure by the PFJ.
Also, the PFJ defines 3Microsoft Middleware Product2 to mean 3the
functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoftls Java Virtual
Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and their
successors in a Windows Operating System Product2 (?VI.K) This definition
is far too narrow and raises some important issues because of what's been
excluded.
First, although Java has been included, Microsoftls C# language has
not, nor have the .NET products been included. This is of concern since
Microsoftls own stated strategy minimizes the use of Java related
technologies, instead favoring their own technologies (C# and .NET),
which, by the strict reading of this definition, are excluded from
regulation within the terms of the PFJ.
Second, although Outlook Express is included, its more powerful sibling,
Outlook is not. This is troubling, since Outlook is the client of choice
within business, and tends to fit the overall definition better than
Outlook Express.
Indeed, a glaring omission here is Microsoft Office itself, which as a
complete product, serves in the same capacity as many of the other stated
3Microsoft Middleware Products.2
These omissions prevent the PFJ being an effective behavioral remedy by
providing very large loopholes with which Microsoft could easily defend
their continuing
[[Page 27321]]
anticompetitive behaviors for years to come. Many of these kinds of
loopholes exist in the PFJ, allowing Microsoft to retain significant
control over its relationships with its OEMs, ISVs, IHVs and other
partners.
Third, the PFJ fails to define an effective enforcement mechanism under the
terms of this settlement. Although the PFJ does define a committee with
investigative powers, it does not vest within that committee the power to
arrest behaviors that are in violation of the terms of this settlement.
Instead, enforcement power is left to the legal system, which is likely not
responsive enough to act in a timely fashion to any actions that are
contrary to this settlement.
Microsoft has demonstrated its willingness and ability to test the
boundaries and resolve of the legal system in prior consent decrees,
illustrating, all too clearly, the ineffectiveness of this approach with
them. Allowing Microsoft to 3get away with it2 again would be a terrible
miscarriage of justice.
In summary, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment is ineffective in
addressing Microsoft l s past behavior, future behavior, nor the
enforcement of the measures contained within it. I maintain the hope that
this settlement, as currently written, will be rejected by the court,
paving the way for a far more effective set of terms in the conclusion of
this case against Microsoft. MTC_00022446--0005
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ken Klavonic
Concord, NC
MTC-00023447
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:09pm
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,
kenneth donaldson
4324 sterling rd
downers grove, IL 60515
MTC-00023448
From: Richard Plevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am a professional software engineer, with BS/MS in Computer Science and
20 years experience in the field. I have programmed in DOS, Windows,
various flavors of UNIX, and other environments.
Microsoft's unfair practices were well known back in the mid-eighties when
I was programming in DOS on an 286-class machine.
I have seen everal far better technologies come and go in this period,
unable to compete with the monopoly. While Microsoft claims that it
operates in the public interest, innovating and ushering in new technology,
the opposite has been true. They have snuffed out innovators (a.k.a.
competitors) using a variety of legal and illegal means. I would estimate
that Microsoft's practices have set the software industry back a decade.
That Microsoft is a monopoly, and has used this position in an anti-
competitive manner is beyond dispute. It has a long history of doing so.
As long as Microsoft maintains an operating system monopoly, they will
continue to stifle innovation and make it extremely difficult for
innovators to bring any (even superior) product to market. I was pleased
when the company was to broken up. It still makes sense. I am very
disappointed to see the Dept. of Justice backing down.
Sincerely,
Richard Plevin
40 E. Orchard Rd
Dummerston, VT 05301
MTC-00023449
From: Paul Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please, for God's sake, get off Microsoft's back. Bill Gates is an absolute
genius and the government should leave him alone to do good for the
American people!
Sincerly,
P Tom Young, Antioch, Ca
MTC-00023450
From: Steven McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:12pm
Subject: MSFT
How much time & $ do we need to waste on this? They make the best
products! If someone makes a better one, where is it?
A satisfied Microsoft customer. Steven McDonald.Get more from the Web. FREE
MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
MTC-00023451
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:07pm
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,
RICKY SHILLINGER
25810-119th Place S.E.
Kent, WA 98031-8402
MTC-00023452
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08pm
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,
RICKY SHILLINGER
25810-119th Place S.E.
Kent, WA 98031-8402
MTC-00023453
From: Mark Woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:16pm
Subject: Against Microsoft Settlement I think the proposed settlement with
Microsoft is a VERY bad idea. How can the DOJ allow a company to trample
others and them allow them to ``pay the piper'' with used
computers and their own software. The penalty should not allow them to
continue hurting people, make them pay with cash, earmark it for a special
fund and allow the administers to choose how to spend it. They can buy
systems from anyone, and equip them with whatever software packages they
want. Business need to be afraid of doing wrong. How will they improve
there business practices if the penalty is to give away their product after
years of selling it for a profit knowing that the consumer will be locked
in for years to come. Do the right thing, and HAMMER Microsoft for years of
wrongful business practices, don't reward them.
Mark Woods
[[Page 27322]]
MTC-00023454
From: Daniel Bungert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings.
I disapprove of the Microsoft Settlement as presently worded.
Thanks.
Daniel Bungert
MTC-00023455
From: David White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm not sure what impact my comments will have. It seems, these days, that
compared to large corporations, private citizens have less and less say
about how we are governed. Hopefully that isn't the case here.
My impression on the proposed settlement is that it is just another version
of the previous government attempt to prevent Microsoft's anti-competitive
and illegal business practices. That effort failed and therefore this one
is likely to fail as well.
This concerns me greatly. A lot more than Microsoft and the computer
industry are at stake here. In the beginning, the United States
distinguished itself from the ``old countries'' in that it
provided an environment where everybody was free participate in the market.
Gone were the old trading guilds that established and, with government
assistance, enforced monopolies. American citizens could improve their
welfare by hard work and intelligence with out fear that some jealous
competitor would be allowed to deploy unfair business tactics and shut them
out.
These days, however, it seems that the legal protections for fair business
competition and consumer protection are being dismantled one by one. This
seems particularly true for businesses involving new technology. What will
happen if Americans no longer believe that they have a voice because high
paid lobbyists monopolize their elected representatives?
What will happen if Americans stop attempting to form businesses because of
fear of being crushed by multinational monopolies like Microsoft. What will
happen if Americans no longer perceive the United States as OUR country??
Aren't these issues important enough to ensure that the Microsoft monopoly
issue is resolved properly?
Please reconsider the settlement.
David White
private citizen of the USA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023456
From: Gary Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I write this email to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust action.
The proposed settlement is rife with problems, poor and overly narrow
definitions and is quite unsatisfactory. The most egregious failings, in my
view, are that it allows Microsoft to keep the profits and maintain the
market position that were ruled to have been obtained illegally, and that
it fails to adequately constrain Microsoft's future behavior in either the
terms of the settlement, or in enforcement of those terms. Many others
have, and will continue to express their concerns over the terms of this
settlement in far more precise detail than I have done here. However,
please add my voice to theirs in expressing disdain for this proposal.
Thank you.
Gary Ward
Sunnyvale, CA.
MTC-00023457
From: Michael Amster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement proposed by the Tunney act leaves Microsoft with an unfair
advantage of developing desktop software. They should be required to
publish the entire operating system API so that other vendors can create
software like Microsoft Office. As it stands, Microsoft has many
undocumented features in the operating system that they use for their
applications. Since these are not public knowledge, no other company can
compete against Microsoft fairly.
-MA
Michael Amster [email protected]
Tel: 310.441.1876
Fax: 310.441.1179
MTC-00023458
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14pm
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,
Jeff Duncan
7174 Clydesdale st
Highland, CA 92346
MTC-00023459
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I know that as a consummer of M S products my ideas and thoughts are of no
concern to you as showen in the ass kissing you made to M S. But I will
feel better for writing on the subject.
1: I can not see were any thing was done to stop the company from doing as
it has in the past.
2: Nothing was done to address damage done to consummers in the past.
3: How does this help me now?
MTC-00023460
From: Emanuel Prostano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9: 17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kindly refer to the attachment. Thank you.
MTC-00023460-0001
Emanuel and Joyce Prostano 20 NE Plantation Road # 3-306 Stuart,
FL 34996-4450
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We are writing to make our public comments in support of the Microsoft
antitrust settlement. We are glad to hear that your office is supporting
the settlement. Microsoft has been a very beneficial company for America.
Microsoft should not be broken up, like AT&T was, or dragged through
eighteen years of litigation, like IBM was. That would not be in the public
interest of America.
Microsoft is making numerous concessions of its legal rights and business
practices in the settlement. Microsoft did not get off easy. It will open
up its internal interface codes for its Windows programs and license its
other intellectual property on non-discriminatory terms. Microsoft will
make it easy for computer builders, software companies and users to take
out the software it includes in Windows, like Internet Explorer, Windows
Media Player, Windows Messenger, and utilities programs, and replace it
with non-Microsoft products. Companies like AOL Time Warner, RealNetworks,
and Symantec will benefit from these changes. Assurance of Microsoft's
compliance will come from the oversight provided by a government-sponsored
technical committee of three software experts, who will also receive and
investigate complaints. Taken together, these terms address the issues in
the lawsuit, go beyond the issues in the suit, and assist Microsoft's
partners and competitors. The settlement will be good for the economy by
removing the dark cloud of uncertainty of the lawsuit, and letting the
American technology industry concentrate again on making the useful
innovations for which it is world-renowned.
Thank you for your continuing support of an end to the lawsuit with the
comprehensive settlement. We hope that the federal judge, newly appointed
to the case, will approve the settlement.
Sincerely,
Emanuel and Joyce Prostano
MTC-00023461
From: RFC-822=wks@primrose.
[[Page 27323]]
nezumi.bloomfield-twp.mi.us@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my disappointment with the proposed settlement.
Let me preface my comments with the following:
A. I am not sure I am entirely in favor of our current antitrust
legislation. I wish to make this predisposition clear, even if it is
irrelevant; the laws have been passed, there is clear legal precedent, and
until the laws are changed, we must enforce them.
B. I am a computer science professional with over fifteen years of
experience in computer science and software development.
C. I have no legal training.
D. I am a US citizen.
Our laws are clear. There is legal precedent. The court has ruled against
Microsoft in the Finding of Fact. All that remains is a settlement. Clearly
any satisfactory settlement must:
1. Take measures to correct for the illegal anti-competitive practices
found in the Finding of Fact.
2. In the absence of (1), and only in the absence of (1), punitive steps
are appropriate to the extent that no affective corrective measures can be
found.
3. Take steps to provide confidence that Microsoft will be less apt to
continue with the same or substantially similar practices in the near
future.
The proposed settlement fails on all counts. I see no corrective measures
whatsoever. I believe the punitive measures to be inconsequential. And,
while preventive measures are clearly the focus of the settlement, I
believe the settlement is wholly inadequate in even this one area of focus.
The proposed oversight mechanism seems insufficient. More importantly,
given earlier actions by Microsoft in the face of legal restrictions
(detailed in the Finding of Fact), the proposed enforcement mechanism seems
absurd. I believe that (1) is the most important. Note that in the absence
of both (1) and (2), there is absolutely no disincentive for Microsoft and
other companies with monopoly power to exploit that power in unlawful ways.
If it is left to the judicial branch of the Federal government to call a
halt to unlawful practice after the fact, without any punishment or
corrective action for those unlawful practices, why would any company
seeking to maximize profit stop anywhere short of the point where they are
forced to halt practices that (unlawfully) exploit that monopoly? There is
no incentive for companies to police themselves.
As a computer science professional, I was very aware of the pains that IBM
took 2-3 decades ago to avoid the appearance of overstepping the
bounds of the law. Clearly IBM acted out of respect for that law and the
anticipated consequences of overstepping the law. Microsoft has shown no
such respect or anticipation, and I do not see anything in the settlement
that will change that. On the contrary, I suspect that this settle will
only worsen the situation.
I have tried to keep my comments here general, without getting into
specifics. Partly, this is because I suspect that this email will merely be
tallied and that any specific comments will not be absorbed in any rational
way, but mostly this is because I find the settlement to be so terribly
unsatisfactory that an enumeration of all unsatisfactory points and the
reasons for the dissatisfaction would be overly lengthy for this forum (I
suspect).
Suffice it to say, as a computer science professional with more than a
passing knowledge of the computer industry, software engineering, software
development, and Microsoft products, I believe that Microsoft was clearly
in violation of the law as read literally and as interpreted by the courts,
and that the proposed settlement does very little to address this and if
permitted to take affect would signal disregard for the law by the Federal
judiciary. I believe that laws should be changed, not disregarded!
Will
William K. Sterbenz
[email protected]
(at home)
MTC-00023462
From: Peter
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
``I DON'T AGREE''
MTC-00023463
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15pm
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,
Trina Hollander
2063 Richland Rd.
Calhoun, KY 42327-9634
MTC-00023464
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15pm
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,
Elaine Frantz
2 Blackgum Lane
Savannah, GA 31411
MTC-00023465
From: Gary Poster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Although I am a relatively happy Windows user, I am concerned about the
proposed Microsoft settlement. They have acted illegally, and should be
corrected.
The proposal, as written, contains so many loopholes that I see, as a
computer professional, that it would be less a corrective action and more
of a legal game. Loopholes include the short-sighted definition of the
Windows platform, the weak API documentation requirements, and language
that allows Microsoft to continue with anticompetitive practices under new
names, like .NET, XBox, and more.
I am not a Microsoft basher. I am not a letter writer. I believe the
government governs best that governs least. I share the government's desire
to rest this case.
However, I believe Microsoft has broken a just law, and needs to be
corrected, for the sake of righting a wrongdoer and for the sake of
upholding our laws. This proposal does not correct, but, perhaps, mildly
annoy, at most.
Thank you for your time.
Gary Poster
170 West End Avenue #5R
New York, NY 10023
212-362-0343
MTC-00023466
From: Cliff O'Neill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18pm
Subject: 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
[[Page 27324]]
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.
Cliff O'Neill
e-mail: [email protected]
AOL IM: Clifferino
MTC-00023467
From: S. Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
---------- Forwarded message
----------
I will make my comments brief.
I have 13 years of experience in the software and hardware development
industry. I have developed everything from chips, boards and computer
systems, to device drivers and applications.
I believe the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Monopoly case is far too
generous to a company that has a long history of illegal anticompetitive
actions. The settlement, as proposed, will not be an effective deterrent to
Microsoft's illegal practices, and will not prevent the company from
continuing to stifle innovation in the computer software market by stamping
out or buying out any company that manages to compete with it.
It is my further opinion that the anticompetitive actions of Microsoft has
held the software industry back from where it could be today without them.
Microsoft advertises that they are the great innovators, but close
examination shows that nearly everything they bring to market has been
developed first by another company. Without a strong remedy that will
prevent further monopolistic actions, the computer software industry will
fall further behind its potential. Since all industry sectors use this
software, their productivity is directly impacted by this. This remedy will
effect the entire nation, across all industry sectors, not just the
software industry. The penalties for a weak response will be expensive to
the entire country.
A stronger remedy than what has been proposed is needed.
Thank You,
Stewart Baker
[email protected]
MTC-00023468
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whomever It May Concern,
In regards to the antitrust practices of Microsoft over the last few years,
with special emphasis on it's predatory behavior to Netscape Communications
and countless other software and computer makers, I feel that the current
remedy being discussed is much to weak a reprimand for Microsoft. Microsoft
has repeatedly shown that if it encounters any competitors in its expanding
markets, it's initial reaction is to attempt to buy it out and then simply
use it's products, or to produce a hastily made, inferior mimic of the
competitor's product, and either sell its at a greatly reduced price or
simply give it away for free as a bundled feature. This sort of predatory
nature is common among monopolies, and Microsoft has stifled competition
every chance it has had.
The remedies proposed are much too weak to inhibit Microsoft's desire to
abuse it's power. While an actual splitting up of the company is
implausible at this point, One prudent solution is to simply dismantle the
system by which Microsoft has leveraged it's obscene power in the computer
industry. Some have suggested that Microsoft release the source code to
it's Windows operating system to the public for any company to use. This
``open sourcing'' while idealistically honest and in earnest,
would not be the best solution, as Microsoft does not get by on the quality
of it's operating system, only it's huge installer base. Releasing the code
would lead to an abandonment of the Microsoft standard by nearly everyone
as they would be able to use their existing programs and infrastructure on
some free varient of the source code. some argue that this is the right
solution, but the remedy should not be a death sentence for Microsoft,
however much most software developers and consumers may wish it to be.
Instead, the more level headed solution is to even the playing field for
all developers. What has allowed Microsoft to bundle it's own in house
software and cripple the attempts of competitors in developing competing
products is it's stringent API licensing. The API's are the protocals which
allow a software developer to produce software which can intimately work in
sync with the OS, thereby being more compatible and intrusive. It is with
these API's that Microsoft bullies companies into unfair agreements, as
without them, software developed for the Windows platform cannot run as
smoothly as software programmed with the API tools. If any company can have
access tot these API's, then Microsoft will not be able to harass software
developers into biased contracts, where they enter into a sort of
indentured servitude in exchange for the ability to program for Windows
with intimate knowledge of how the OS works. This reduces Microsoft's
ability to coerce smaller developers in the open market. For comparison,
The two other largest OS's, the Mac OS and the various flavors of Unix/
Linux whose sizes are significantly smaller than Microsoft's share, have no
such restrictions on their development, Apple Computers does not license
it's operating systems development tools, they are readily available either
online or frot he company. Unix and it's major varient Linux, are
completely opened sourced, with their code and appropriate compilers
available almost anywhere. On a side note, Linux and it's various flavors
are among the MOST stable operating systems out there, mainly due tot he
fact that the code is constantly being improved upon by it's millions of
users around the world. Where as Microsoft dismisses it's products''
massive security holes as ``features'', and eventually may get
around to patching the problem, Unix programmers are constantly searching
for flaws in their systems, if only for the thrill of being the first to
produce a viable solution. This may be the best model for large scale
business networks to function on, but, that is onyl wishful thinking. In
reality, the Monopoly that is Microsoft is too large to dismantle smoothly
in one decision, rather it must be gradually morphed into a competitive
company which only survives based on the quality of it's products, like
everyone else. Microsoft argues it's only large because it got there for
being too good, but in the end this argument is meaningless. US Steel also
got big through clever business deals, this by no means infers that it
should be allowed to stay that way and abuse it's power if we wish to live
in anything resembling a market economy.
Thank You for your time,
Jeffrey Rubenstone
MTC-00023469
From: Granville Barker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22pm
Subject: Please don't accept the Microsoft Settlement as it stands.
To Whom it may concern:
I just wanted to write and say that I think the Microsoft settlement is a
bad idea. Them providing any software for free costs them nothing. Please
do not accept the settlement as written. I'm in the software business and
I'd hate to have a monopoly like Microsoft put me out of business. --
Granville Barker
MTC-00023470
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18pm
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,
Margaret Moorman
216 Lakeway
Kerrville, TX 78028
MTC-00023471
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18pm
[[Page 27325]]
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,
BARBARA WHARTON
6003 OAKGATE ROW
LA JOLLA, CA 92037-0921
MTC-00023472
From: Samuel Klatchko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:14pm
Subject: comments on the Microsoft Settlement
I do not know if my comments are directly applicable to the current anti-
trust case, but I still feel I need to weigh in with them. I am a software
engineer by profession. At a prior job, I used to develop software for
Microsoft Windows. A customer requested a feature in the specific product
that I was responsible for. After researching the APIs that Microsoft
published, I realized that it was impossible to provide the exact feature
that the customer wanted (in order to do so, I would need certain support
from the OS that was not available). I proposed an alternative solution
that didn't quite do what the customer wanted. I was told not to bother and
do not know if we lost the customer over this.
About one year later, I purchased and read the book Undocumented Windows.
This book documented certain features of the OS that were not documented
but were in use by applications written by Microsoft and other large
companies. While reading this book, I discovered a function that would
havea allowed me to implement the exact feature that the customer had
wanted. By that time it was too late.
This was my first demonstration of behaviour that Microsoft did to give
their own application team an advantage over others. In various interviews,
Microsoft officers state that they are succeful because they create better
products then other companies. That might be true, but in this one case, it
was true because they offered features to their own application developers
that were not offered to all developers. I don't believe that any
behavioural remedy will work. There are so many ways that Microsoft can
give themselves an unfair advantage that they will always find away around
a behavioural remedy. Please do not accept the current settlement.
R Samuel Klatchko--Principal Software Engineer
Brightmail [email protected]
MTC-00023473
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
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,
Robert Waligunda
46 Catbird Court
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2045
MTC-00023474
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
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,
Tom Dannecker
without prejudice
4470 Sunset Blvd. #350
Los Angeles, CA 90027
MTC-00023475
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
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,
Robert Appel
536 Levenhall Dr.
Fayetteville, NC 28314-2624
MTC-00023476
From: tonyb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
I would like to submit my opinion concerning the final judgment of the
Microsoft settlement.
This judgment would only perpetuate the Microsoft monopoly. The only way to
insure that there will be competition is to separate Microsoft into two
companies, one that would sell an operating system and the other that would
sell application software. All API's and file formats need to be made
available to the public. This will allow third party software companies to
compete without Microsoft having an unfair advantage. With the application
software company separate from the operating system company, they would
have the freedom to port the applications to other popular operating
systems.
Time is of the essence. Every day that Microsoft is not brought to justice
is another day that they extend their monopoly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony J. Becker III
MTC-00023477
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:21pm
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
[[Page 27326]]
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,
Joe Groom
26 Sunshine Rd.
dgewood, NM 87015
MTC-00023478
From: judyplusgreg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Leave Microsoft alone! The US government only knows how to take the hard
earned money from producers and give it to non-producers. Microsoft creates
wealth instead of destroying wealth as does the government. Without
corporations that are profitable there would be no money for the government
to take, thus no government workers. Something to think
about........................
Greg Holt
Orlando, Fl
MTC-00023479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23pm
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,
Larry C Alford
500 West 123rd Ave.
#3236
Westminster, CO 80234
MTC-00023480
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
With due respect, I disagree with the proposed antitrust settlement between
DOJ and Microsoft. It is like letting Microsoft go scotfree.
I request for a settlement with restraints compatible with the intent and
spirit of the case.
Thanks,
Nagaraj
PS: Opinions are mine and necessarily that of the company. --
Nagaraj Kulkarni
SunIT Technology Office--Application Design Center
Sun Ext: 67514 Phone: (650)336-7514 Fax: (650)336-0808
Calendar : http://cal.central.sun.com/?calid=nk119331&security=1
MTC-00023481
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26pm
Subject: RE: Settlement
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN........I believe the settlement that is being
offered by Microsoft is a travesty. Microsoft has an monopoly that should
have ended just like ATT's monopoly. Microsoft has to much power and it
ignores the common people of this counrty. Microsoft is the worst example
of coporate greed, excess and selfishness I've ever witnessed. Microsoft
does nothing for the average citizen of this country except to fleece their
pockets. The government has dropped the ball on this one. If the government
had stuck to the originial trial verdict the people of this country would
have supported the decision. But polIticial and financial interests
corrupted the verdict and the governments ability to seem fair and unbias.
It has become increasingly apparent to me and others that the system is
fixed. That there is little that the ordinary citizen can do to change it.
I believe the politicans have corrupted our system and that no matter what
we the peope want ( i.e.....look at the election, Gore won the popular vote
but instead Bush is president), the Supreme Court has been corrupted.(
there's something wrong when one of the judges sons works for Bush). I feel
sorry for future generations. William C.Glines
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023482
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23pm
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,
Christopher Burkland
7440 Hollow Corners Rd.
Almont, MI 48003
MTC-00023483
From: John Gallup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to oppose the Department of Justice's proposed settlement with
Microsoft. The settlement remedies are inadequate to restrain Microsoft
from extending its monopoly power, and hence against the interest of the
public and continued innovation in the information technology sector.
Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in subverting past behavioral remedies
after being caught in court. In fact, in every case, it has achieved its
objective of protecting its monopoly position from competitors, and the
competitors have lost out despite the court remedies. Often these
competitors had technically superior products. Since structural remedies
for restoring competition in Microsoft's many markets seem to no longer be
in the cards, behavioral remedies that have some prospect of effectiveness
include prohibiting Microsoft's anti-competitive preload agreements with
hardware makers, publicly documenting the data file formats of the Office
suite, and submitting Microsoft's present and future networking protocols
to an independent open standards body.
Without these remedies, Microsoft can easily maintain its operating system
monopoly with the preload agreeements, its office suite monopoly by
preventing competitors from reading from and writing to Microsoft formats
reliably, and gradually to monopolize access to the Internet through
Microsoft's expanding set of proprietary methods for transacting data,
assuring security, and making payments over the Internet. Microsoft's
tightening grip on large parts of information technology is not broad
speculation--all of these threats to competition and further
innovation are well documented by Microsoft's competitors and independent
observers. You have a duty to protect the public from this threat.
Sincerely,
John Luke Gallup, PhD.
Economist
MTC-00023484
From: Fixemers1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
The opinions expressed herein are my opinions and are not influenced by, or
the responsibility of, my employer.
I beleive that the proposed settlement is too weak and offers too many
avenues for Microsoft to not comply with the spirit of the settlement. One
of the most important facets of the settlement that provides an
insufficient remedy is the proposed opening of Microsoft APIs. As a
computer user who happens to be a programmer I have as much right to write
a program that accesses an API as any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM. I paid
money for my hardware and for the operating system. If my system does not
do a job that I wish it to do, I should be able to add the desired
functionality. I deserve documentation of all of the APIs on or available
for my system. I
[[Page 27327]]
beleive this is especially true for the operating system, because it is the
master program, the program that all others depend upon and interface with.
The format for distribution of the APIs is also insufficient. It should be
distributed in industry standard HTML4.0 with PNG or JPEG images. It should
also be available, with free registration, for anyone visiting a specified
Microsoft development website.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Fixemer
Software Engineer
415 S. Elmhurst Rd.
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Definition:
API--Documentation describing the form of a function call, any
important algorithms, protocols, structure descriptions, any requirements
for calling a function or stateful changes that are caused by calling a
function.
APPENDIX:
As a programmer I understand that documenting and making publicly available
an API will NOT compromise security. Only forcing the distribution of both
encryption keys and the API can compromise security. If someone wants to go
to the extent of dissasembling a program to obtain an encryption key, then
it will not be considerably more difficult to dissasemble and reverse
engineer an encryption algorithm. Often algorithms for encoding and
decoding data are provided with an API, because part of the API requires an
encrypted data stream For this reason, encryption keys, even in Microsoft
programs, are hardly ever hardwired into a program.
Also an API will not expose every possible functional interface, only those
that present meaningful functionality.
MTC-00023485
From: Rob Kahlbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:18pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
Hello, my name is Robert Kahlbaum. I am a student at Eastern Michigan
University, and I am about 1 year away from graduating with a Bachelors
degree in Computer Science. I have been working in my field for
approximately 2 and a half years now, and as I look at my employment
options post graduation, my options seem limited. It seems from the
research that I have done in my choice of career, I have one option;
program under Microsoft Windows. Everywhere I look, companies want MS
Windows programmers, or they want you to be familiar with the Windows
operating systems.
I have been keeping track of this trial since its conception, and when
Microsoft was deemed a monopoly, I felt that I might finally get some
options as to how my career will go. Then, the settlement was agreed to,
and my hopes were struck down. It seems that the government, and 9 of the
states involved with the trial, including my own state, have agreed to a
solution that will only further Microsofts monopoly. It also seems that
this agreement allows microsoft to continue its monopolistic practices in
other venues. My question is, how can a company that has been deemed a
monopoly, not be punished as a monopoly?
Because of the current settlement, I will be continuing to learn how to
program under Microsoft Windows. I will be helping further their monopoly
because I have few choices of where to work, because Microsoft is where the
money is. I admit that I can work anywhere that I want, but it seems that
if I want to be successful, and make a living, I have only 1 option. I am
hoping that the other 9 states can come up with a remedy that will give me,
and other soon to be graduating college students like me, a chance to make
a broader choice as to where and how I want to make a living.
Thank you for your time,
Robert Kahlbaum
Eastern Michigan University Student
MTC-00023486
From: John G. Roush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:27pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I understand that negotiations over the Microsoft antitrust suit are at a
critical pass. Please accept my comment as follows:
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,'' states the Association Of
Concerned Tax Payers, ``not only in terms of computer technology, but
all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever
seen.''
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough. The average
computer user has actually benefited by Microsoft creativity and
productivity. The original settlement sounded fine. Do not force Microsoft
to give anything more to Netscape or any other competitor or state
governments.
Sincerely,
John G. Roush
400 S. Taft Ave.
Fremont, OH 43420
419-334-9504
MTC-00023487
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:25pm
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,
Lee Poppe
1036 Carlton Drive
St. Paul, MN 55126-8129
MTC-00023488
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24pm
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,
Emma Jean Smith
5600 New Hope Rd.
Sweetwater, TN 37874
MTC-00023489
From: Tom Hood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:28pm
Subject: microsoft
Microsoft is very powerful. Think a bit about Enron. Think a bit about
Microsoft. What happens if/when Microsoft fails. What would be the impact
to our economy?
All giants stumble. Many giants fall. It could happen. We need more
competition to ensure the failure of one giant does not take the rest of us
out. The proposed settlement does not help anyone but Microsoft.
Tom Hood
300 E. Granger #14
Modesto, CA 95350
MTC-00023490
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26pm
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
[[Page 27328]]
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,
Paul Yates
707 Vernon Dr
Jacksonville, NC 28540
MTC-00023491
From: seymour bronstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
SYBRON
As a consumer, a taxpayer, and business owner I strongly object to the
continued harassment of Microsoft by the federal government,as well as by
the state governments, because of Microsoft's successes. These suits are
motivated by greed. The greed and jealousy of their competitors, and the
greed of various government for a fast cheap undeserved buck. When will the
Governments learn to get off the backs of the most creative, motivated,
dedicated, hardworking of its citizens who are the ones who strive to make,
and have succeeded in making, this country great?
Seymour Bronstein
MTC-00023492
From: Ryan Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I have been involved in the computer industry since 1977, and I can tell
you from experience that you could kill Microsoft all together and not
significantly hurt the computer industry, there are enough standards out
there that people would do just fine. I would also state that Microsoft
does indeed have competition, and that if they weren't a monopoly they
would have choked by now because they're not particularly careful
programmers. They're built on speed.
None of that matters though, because the real issue at hand is whether or
not they broke the law, US courts have held that they did. Therefore they
do deserve a fitting penalty. I am sure that the proposal you have put
forward as the final settlement is going to have no lasting effect on their
conduct. I can't say that I have the answer to the problem, but I know for
sure that this is not the correct course of action. Please consider your
actions carefully, and realize that whatever happens here and now WILL have
a significantly lasting effect on the computer industry as a whole. I would
also say that virtually anyone who knows economics could tell you that if
you have a product that sells for a high price, and one that is free, in
any other industry the free item would be virtually dominant. In this case
you have several very good free and well written competitive products, that
are not able to make a significant hold in the desktop OS market. Please
please please consider carefully what you do.
Ryan
MTC-00023493
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:26pm
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,
J.C. Carney
113 \1/2\ West 3rd Street # 1
Park Rapids, MN 56470-1572
MTC-00023494
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:30pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
this is a horrible Idea, i run linux and windows and i think that if they
shut down wine, then microsoft will rule the world
MTC-00023495
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a long time user of Microsoft products. I feel that the
products are of very good quality, and that I always paid a fair price.
Value received has always been exceptionally high. Microsoft has always
beat the competition by offering better products. Please don't destroy
excellence.
Peter S Hanson
809 Vauclain Rd
Bryn Mawr PA 19010
MTC-00023496
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:27pm
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,
Larry Anderson
103 Merritt St
South Boston, VA 24592-5017
MTC-00023497
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:27pm
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,
Scott Floyd
129 Alcoa Hwy
Knoxville , TN 37920-5502
MTC-00023498
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't believe that the current proposal effectively punishes the anti-
competitive actions of Microsoft, nor will it limit their ability to
continue similar actions in the future. To effectively punish illegal
behavior, the settlement must deprive Microsoft of the advantages of its
past illegal actions. Since their Operating System business is the tool
with which they have illegally taken advantage of the marketplace; they
should, at the very least, lose the leverage of this monopoly. The proposed
settlement imposes supposed restrictions that actually favor Microsoft in
the marketplace. Codifying the monopoly is not justice, and will do nothing
to discourage predatory business practices from this monopoly.
I feel that this proposed settlement is a weak attempt to reach a
settlement for the sake of expediency, but does not serve the interests of
the marketplace.
Bill Hughes
[[Page 27329]]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023499
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
Subject: Persecution of Microsoft
TIME to stop , or is that Time / Warner AOL , Why not have the Taliban
prosecute the US for violating their rights during our recent conflict?
Just because they can't compete , Microsoft's competitors have chosen to
litigate in order to buy time to build their warchest. Time Warner AOL are
engaged in a battle to utilize our courts for their own agenda. Enough is
Enough. Settle and let the excellent people at Microsoft continue to create
newer, more useful products. It is foolish to continue to punish one of the
strongest US companies . We should be proud of the accomplishments of
Microsoft. They have set the standard and have continued to up the mark.
Don't give the competition free reign to steal their focus. Drop the issue,
it has been settled by the consumers who continue to purchase and demand
more from Microsoft
MTC-00023500
From: Jerry W. Hubbard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I have believed for a long time that IBM and Microsoft created a new and
great market. The early statements by the leaders of both companies shows
the extent of growth was unplanned. I am not against Microsoft doing
business. I am against illegal business practices.
The settlement should STOP the illegal business practices of Microsoft. The
published proposed solution is a PR and marketing win for Microsoft. It
does nothing stop the illegal business practices (a finding of the appeals
court) of Microsoft.
Please give our country a solution, that will restrain Microsoft from
breaking the law. My God give you wisdom.
Jerry W. Hubbard
[[email protected]]
6216 Odell
St. Louis, MO 63139
314-781-2515
MTC-00023501
From: Elizabeth Presler-Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to say that I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement to be
completely inadequate. Microsoft has been shown by the court to be in
violation of the antitrust laws. The proposed settlement neither corrects
for Microsoft's past misdeeds, nor does it provide any credible grounds to
believe that it will prevent future misdeeds.
One need only look at the way Microsoft has folded its Passport service
into their latest operating system release (Windows XP) to see that
Microsoft has no intention of changing their behavior. The personal
computer business needs to provide options to consumers if we, the
consumers, are to reap the benefits of our free capitalist system.
Please impose a strong structural remedy on Microsoft which will prevent
them from becoming the great monopolist of the 21st century. Please uphold
the law.
Thank you,
Martin Presler-Marshall
6004 Meadow Run Ct
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
MTC-00023502
From: Gene Wunderlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is bad idea.
Regards
Gene Wunderlin
MTC-00023503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/madam,
I believe it is time to end this suit and let the people buy the products
they wish.
Sean Moore
22 agawam north
Yonkers
ny 10704
MTC-00023504
From: Mike Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to exercise the opportunity for public comment afforded by the
Tunney Act to voice profound objection to the Proposed Final Judgment in
United States v. Microsoft. The Proposed Final Judgment does very little to
reduce the perpetuation of anticompetitive behavior by the defendant. In
point of fact, the wording of definitions and provisions in the Proposed
Final Judgment is so overly narrow and misleading that the defendant will
be able to use the Judgement as a tool to leverage still greater dominance
in a market they have almost entirely (and illegally) monopolized.
For example, C# misses being defined as Microsoft middleware under
definition K. While presented as an evolution of Java by the defendant,
C# is being positioned as a Java-killer in the same sense that IE was
used to crush Netscape. Recent OS software releases by Microsoft are
tellingly absent of Java support. In my attempts to research cross-platform
support for C# and .NET programming, I repeatedly bounced off
``This page can only be viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer''
messages, an absurd perversion of the open standards upon which internet
networking is based. Also evading the narrow definition ``K'' is
MicroSoft.NET, a very ambitious initiative by the defendant to dominate
internet network services. It seems not merely likely, but certain that the
defendant will leverage its present monopoly position to block competing
entry into this nascent (and supremely lucrative) field. It is, after all,
outside the scope of the Proposed Judgement as written, except that
independent software vendors are specifically prohibited by the Judgement
from using released Microsoft APIs in the development of applications for
non-Microsoft operating systems. These are just two of many glaring
examples demonstrating that the Proposed Final Judgment does not and will
not remedy the behavior of the defendant. It would be contrary to the best
interest of the People of The United States if the proposed settlement were
to become the Final Judgement in the case.
Sincerely,
Michael Barrett
MTC-00023505
From: Marcia Holston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33pm
Subject: Settlement
Settle this case and quit harping on Microsoft. Smarter and Better is not
illegal. Marcia Holston, Cocoa Beach, FLGet more from the Web. FREE MSN
Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
MTC-00023506
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam/Judge:
I have been told that this e-mail address is for comments regarding the
Microsoft settlement. It is my understanding that this e-mail will be read
by attorneys at the Department of Justice and the federal judge presiding
over this case. I hope that you read this with an open mind. As graduates
of law school, each one of you reading this message must understand
something about achievement. It was not ``luck'' or
``happenstance'' or any such thing that made you an assistant US
Attorney or a Federal Judge. You have been rewarded with these prestigious
positions as a result of your hard work.
As such, you must know the grave injustice of punishing achievement rather
than rewarding it. Imagine if upon receiving the highest grades in your law
school class, you were not rewarded with law review honors but instead were
kicked out of school. Yet this is how it is proposed that we treat
Microsoft.
Even if you did not share your notes with others in the class, even if you
did not take the time to explain to those who did not understand concepts
that were self-evident to you, in the end you did not achieve your law
school grades at anyone's expense. You earned them. The same holds true for
Microsoft. It earned its profits.
Please do not punish Microsoft. To the extent that the law was violated, it
is the law that is wrong, not Microsoft. Who among us would not have voted
the other way in the Dred Scot case, notwithstanding the fact that at the
time there was ample precedent regarding the legality of slavery to support
the opinion? Please do not make the same mistake again; please do not
punish Microsoft.
Very truly yours,
Edward N. Mazlish
1409 Sun Valley Way
Florham Park, NJ 07932
MTC-00023507
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27330]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
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,
Stephen DeBerry
PO Box 186
1312 S. Pamplico Hwy.
Pamplico, SC 29583-0186
MTC-00023508
From: Anthony Venezia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed settlement,
and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please consider this a
vote against the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement
that is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to
Microsoft. I hope the irony of using MS Hotmail to send this does not elude
you.
Thank you,
Tony Venezia
[email protected]
MTC-00023509
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
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,
Paul Fields
1170 Cantina Drive
St Louis, MO 63141-6041
MTC-00023510
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
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,
Charles Frink
12216 N. Teal Drive
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
MTC-00023511
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
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,
Betsy Torn
2313 29th St.
TX 79411-1307
MTC-00023512
From: Jerry Whelan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed DOJ vs Microsoft
settlement. I believe that the settlement terms are not in line with the
finding of facts regarding Microsoft abusing its position as a de facto
monopoly--in general the punishment contained in the settlement is a
far cry from being a deterrent towards future abuses by Microsoft and in
some ways actually encourages anti-competitive behavior going forward. One
particular issue that I have with the proposed settlement is that it allows
Microsoft to leverage its monopoly position to very strongly inhibit the
proliferation of Opensource Software.
Opensource Software is a brand new and truly innovative way of thinking
about how software should be developed, distributed and used and as such it
has a potentially critical role to play in the forward progress of our
nation and the world as a whole. Unfortunately, the terms of the settlement
allow Microsoft to prohibit the distribution of their software in
conjunction with Opensource Software. Microsoft has been known to make the
completely specious argument that a third party distributing their for-pay
or free software in conjunction with Opensource software somehow weakens
Microsoft's intellectual property rights on their own software. Nothing
could be further from the truth--it should be immediately obvious to
anyone that any such actions by a third party can in no way obligate
Microsoft to reduce their intellectual property rights. That would be the
equivalent of saying that because a library allows you to borrow a book for
free, the publisher of the book is now obligated to give away free copies
to anyone who asks for one. Simply ridiculous!
Nevertheless, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to forbid
distribution of their software in any conjunction whatsoever with
Opensource software. And, Microsoft is already abusing its monopoly
position to do just this exact thing. For example, the license agreement
for the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 Software Developer's Kit
forbids the distribution of any software developed with that kit in any
combination with Opensource software. Clearly this forbids a third-party
developer from even using the Kit to develop Opensource
software--which then just serves to reinforce Microsoft's monopoly
position at the cost of the consumer and the independent developer.
The issue of Microsoft's licensing policies stunting Opensource growth and
distribution is but one of many problems with the proposed settlement,
however I think that it is clearly a key problem that at, an absolute
minimum, must be addressed before any settlement becomes final.
Thank you,
Jerry Whelan
Independent Software Consultant
3727 W. Magnolia Blvd, #451
Burbank, CA 91505
MTC-00023513
From: G Spielmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, I oppose the current settlement in the Microsoft
anti-trust case. I am an IT professional, currently working as assistant
site manager for the
[[Page 27331]]
local IT arm of a large, American manufacturing company. I deal with
Microsoft products and issues concerning those products on a daily basis.
My stance against the current settlement revolves around two issues. First,
if one tracks the history of Microsoft, they will see that this sort of
anti-competitive behavior persists as part of its corporate operation and,
one may say, its corporate culture. Microsoft clearly shows little remorse
or concern in these matters and I feel cannot be expected to, in good
faith, honor any agreement issued to them by the Department of Justice. I
feel the proposed settlement is lax and will lead to yet another trial such
as this in the near future.
The second concern I have is one that is even now more prevalent--that
of security. In my profession, network security is one of the most mission
critical objectives to achieve. The most common roadblock to achieving this
goal is the lack of security in many of Microsoft's products. In fact, at
my place of employment, it is standard practice not to use certain
Microsoft products due to their related security issues. In a post
September 11th world, network security is going to be even more important
for a wider variety of professions and people. If Microsoft is allowed to
operate at the current status quo, their seeming lack of security awareness
in their products will no doubt create issues for the US and possibly world
at large, if it hasn't already. I feel that the current settlement should
be excused in favor of a more strict approach to reprimanding this
corporation or, if allowed to operate as a monopoly, they should be held
far more responsible for security issues in the products they make.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Garett Spillman
MTC-00023514
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:33pm
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,
Karl Reuss
7530 Icicle Rd
Leavenworth, WA 98826
MTC-00023515
From: hsimkowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
It is my opinion, as a software developer and consumer, that Microsoft is
NOT guilty of anti-competitive behavior and that the settlement worked out
by the DOJ and the participating states is a good one and should be put
into effect. I also feel very strongly that it is only Microsoft's few
competitors (AOL, SUN, Oracle) that are causing this whole thing to happen
purely for their own gain. None of them has products that are as cost
effective for the software developer or consumer as those offered by
Microsoft. Lets end this.
Howard Simkowitz
MTC-00023516
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
Being heavily involved in the computer industry for the last 25 years the
MS case is of keen interest to me. I have watched as MS has stifled
innovation and crushed competitors using its market presence. I have, in
particular, observed as MS has gained massive market share in messaging by
leveraging its desktop OS monopoly.
I believe that the proposed settlement will harm the public interests
severely, perpetuating MS's monopoly and perhaps strengthening it. I would
like to suggest the following simple act as part of the remedy you
prescribe:
Force MS to make old versions of Windows open source. This includes all
versions up to, and including, Windows 98 SE. Discussion: MS claims that
Windows is its ``crown jewels'' and yet it is making a determined
effort to force its clients to upgrade to new, revenue generating, products
rather frequently. It habitually claims that it has incorporated massive
``innovation'' in its new versions. Fine, let the public buy the
innovative new features because it wants them, not because it must. Force
MS to provide genuine new features if it wants new revenue. I also strongly
approve of the suggestions to force MS to license the source code of Office
and IE to third parties who wish to migrate them to other OSes.
Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully,
Andrew Price
C.O.O.
HealthSpace Integrated Solutions Ltd.
HealthSpace USA Inc.
Tel. (604) 860-4224
http://www.healthspace.ca
MTC-00023517
From: Mark Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41pm
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
Dear sirs,
I am a programmer with seven years of experience in the software industry.
Up until recently I have been a Microsoft fan and supporter. I still make
my living using Microsoft products and developing solutions based on their
operating systems and development tools. As is happens, that is exactly why
I am writing to encourage you to seek additional concessions from
Microsoft. For the first time in my career as a Visual Basic programmer I
have become aware of the treadmill that Microsoft has put under me. In my
current project I have hit a bug in Microsoft's ADO library (code library
that allows access to databases) that has existed since the inaugural
versions of the library three years ago. Here i am, seven versions of that
library later with the bug still there and no possibility of it ever being
fixed. Why? Because the ADO library is about to go away and be replaced by
ADO.Net. The same bug may be there....but to even determine that I will
have to upgrade all my development tools and operating system.
Obviously, this fact, in an of itself, is no crime. All software has bugs.
This will by my last Microsoft based development project. I write this
email using Sylpheed email client on my Slackware linux box. There are
other ways of doing development that will avoid these Microsoft problems
and I will pursue them.
This particular bug has a long history. The newsgroups are full of
comments, complaints and requests for help in dealing with the problems it
creates. Microsoft ignores them. This is my real proof of the *fact* of a
Microsoft monopoly. I have never been a victim of any of the security
snafus for which Microsoft products are known. I was not even convinced of
their monopoly status during the trial. It is this particular bug that has
opened my eyes and made me reevaluate the evidence.
The solution proposed by Microsoft, donating computers and software to
schools is one of the most brilliant marketing strategies they have come up
with to date. Schools are traditionally Apple users. Microsoft would gain
an incredible advantage with this solution. So what is the solution. I
still don't know if I can endorse the breakup of the company. As bad as
Microsoft has been, I fear the government more. I think the forced breakup
of a company is worse than their monopoly.
The perfect solution in my mind is to force Microsoft to publish all of
their current code under a modified GPL (Gnu Public License). Microsoft
could have special permission to continue to develop this code base
independantly, outside of the publishing requirements of the GPL. All other
developers would then be able to continue development of the same code
base...but they would be limited by the GPL and forced to release their
code. Microsoft would be allowed to continue the development of proprietary
code....but a single snapshot of that code would be revealed publicly.
Developers could fix the bugs and security problems that Microsoft has
ignored while Microsoft could continue to create their Dot.Net thing.
Maybe some fine tuning of this idea would be best....maybe release the
source code for Windows 2000 and previous. If Windows XP is really that
great then Microsoft should have no difficulty maintaining their place in
the market.
[[Page 27332]]
My two cents. Do not reward them for their actions.
Mark Berger
[email protected]
MTC-00023518
From: allan rees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft.
Allan Rees
Salt Lake City, UT
1/23/2002
MTC-00023519
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
NO more litigation against Microsoft. The matter is settled. We are
satisfied. We are voters. No more litigation against Microsoft.
Elizabeth K. Nesbitt and C. Anderson Dorton
MTC-00023520
From: Arthur Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Trial Penalty
In light of the guilty verdict handed down to Microsoft regarding its
anticompetitve and predatory practices, I believe that the proposed
settlement does not serve the public interest. If a company is convicted of
illegally maintaining a monopoly, then a settlement should not allow that
company to remain a monopoly. A company convicted of illegally maintaining
a monopoly should not be allowed to continue the practices which brought
about its conviction. A company convicted of breaking the law should not be
trusted blindly to do the right thing. A penalty should penalize the
company for its behavior. That penalty should include steps to prevent such
behavior from happening again and steps to reimburse those who were
adversely affected.
If Microsoft had attained its monopoly as a result of putting out a good
product that everyone liked, then they should be rewarded for their work.
But Microsoft attained their monopoly through threats and coercion. They
have been convicted of illegally maintaining a monopoly. Their penalty
should reflect that. I do not believe that the settlement proposed by the
U.S. Justice Department does that.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Arthur Young
MTC-00023521
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39pm
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,
Ray & Judy Stemen
2444 Westpoint
Lancaster, OH 43130
MTC-00023522
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39pm
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 Wheeler
233 Witherspoon Ln.
Hot Springs, AR 71913
MTC-00023523
From: Kiel Oleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not look highly upon an acceptance of a substandard settlement. I am
16 years old and have a lot of time ahead of me, I do not want to live a
life in which Microsoft can charge what it wants of its operating systems,
and more importantly, and oft overlooked, its office program. I cannot
afford $700 to do school work. This is outrageous. Either give schools
another program or get the price of office lowered. That is the one thing I
ask.
Thank you,
Kiel Oleson
MTC-00023524
From: Paul S R Chisholm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42pm
Subject: proposed Microsoft settlement
Summary: I don't believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is acceptable in
light of Microsoft's prior actions. It neither punishes Microsoft for
having abused it's monopoly position, nor discourages Microsoft from future
abuse. (I'm a professional software developer, responsible for a program
that runs on both Microsoft and non-Microsoft platforms. My employer would
not be considered a competitor of Microsoft; there are some products both
produce (not the one I work on), and some that work together. This makes me
pretty typical for the industry.)
I believe the conduct restrictions imposed by the settlement on Microsoft
are reasonable. I particularly agree with the provisions intended to loosen
Microsoft's control over what non-Microsoft products can be offered by PC
manufacturers (e.g., allowing the latter to sell dual-boot systems).
I don't think the restrictions will be effective.
o There is neither admission of guilt, nor punishment for past misdeeds.
This is the company that steadfastly denies having a monopoly position, or
any wrongdoing. There's no reason to believe they have any reason to change
their general behavior in the future.
o There is no history that Microsoft would abide by the spirit of the
letter. This is the company that re-worded the previous settlement to allow
precisely the behavior the Government was trying to prohibit; this is the
company that, when ordered to produce an operating system without a bundled
browser, produced an inoperative operating system and claimed compliance.
To describe their ``obedience'' as legalistic is an affront to
the legal system.
o There is no downside to Microsoft ignoring the settlement. If they fail
to settle, they battle in court; if they settle but violate the settlement,
they battle in court. The latter course postpones further action by the
court. This is the company that has tried to postpone judicial action at
every point in the suit. Signing a settlement can be just another way of
doing this. There have been many other criticisms of the settlement; I
won't repeat them.
I hope my position aids the court in its decision.
--Paul S. R. Chisholm
With grief, with determination, and with hope.
MTC-00023525
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39pm
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
[[Page 27333]]
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,
David David
5620 South Amaryllis Pl
Boise, ID 83716
MTC-00023526
From: Clark Venable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does nothing to change Microsoft's behavior. Please
reconsider.
Clark Venable
MTC-00023527
From: Yosuke Matsumura
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:43pm
To: Federal Register
Re: Microsoft Antitrust Trial
I am currently a college freshman attending Cornell University and have
been a computer user since fourth grade. Throughout this time, I have been
using Apple computers, and I am familiar with the detrimental effects of
Microsoft's monopoly in the personal computer business. I fear that the
proposed settlement will not be enough to solve the problems brought up by
the antitrust trial. To justly penalize Microsoft for the antitrust
violations that it has been found accountable for, the settlement must
include the following:
An equal, if not separate, development of its key productivity programs
(Office, Outlook, and Media Player) for alternative operating systems.
Furthermore, these programs must be sold at the same price as their Windows
versions. As an Apple user, I have been forced to use these products, as
they have become the de facto standard in the academic and business
community. This would not be problematic if not for the fact that the
Macintosh versions of these softwares come at a premium price and with
fewer features than the Windows counterparts.
For example, Outlook is not available for Apple's new operating system, OS
X. Microsoft includes a different program, Entourage, to view email and
organize appointments and contacts. However, while Outlook is able to
communicate with Microsoft's Exchange Servers, Entourage is not.
Additionally, while OfficeXP for Windows Standard Edition costs $239 and
$479 for the upgrade and full versions respectively, the Macintosh
equivalent, Office v.X costs $299 and $499 for the upgrade and full
versions respectively. This is for the standard suite for both platforms,
which include Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and an email program (Outlook for
Windows and Entourage for Macintosh). Furthermore,
Macintosh users are denied the opportunity to buy a
``Professional'' version like Windows users, that comes with
Microsoft Access.
By providing second-rate software to other platforms, Microsoft indirectly
supports users to switch to a Windows operating system to gain full
compatibility and lower prices on software. Since Microsoft also produces
the Windows operating system, a conflict of interest arises. A user moving
to from a non-Windows machine to a Windows machine will purchase not only
the productivity programs they wish to have, but also the Windows operating
system. Promoting such behavior by providing less-capable software to
competing operating systems only helps Microsoft's position and provides no
incentive for the company to improve its software for other operating
systems. This addition to the settlement will ensure that users of other
operating systems will be able to work effectively without pressure to use
the Windows operating system.
Yosuke Matsumura
13238 SE 51st Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
(425) 401-9213
Townhouses A09C
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 253-2207
[email protected]
MTC-00023528
From: karawynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Merely requiring Microsoft to stop dictating what OEMs load onto new
machines, and similar minor measures as listed in the proposed final
judgment, are like locking the barn after the horse has escaped--too
little too late. The real problem is now (and has been for some time) that
neither OEMs nor end-users have any reasonable alternative to the Windows
operating system. From the end-user's perspective, once you've bought your
first computer, and invested money in hardware and software for one
platform, you're locked in for life. The cost to scrap all of that and
reinvest in an all-new hardware and software configuration is so
prohibitive that for most people the option might as well not exist.
But if Microsoft were required to fully and publicly release the Windows
APIs, it would give competitors a fighting chance to develop an alternative
operating system that will work with PC hardware and Windows-compatible
software. A full standardization and public release must be mandatory and
enforced; there are too many loopholes in the minor disclosures required by
the proposed final judgment, and Microsoft has already demonstrated that it
can't be trusted to act in good faith.
This is not, incidentally, a categorical anti-Microsoft rant. I live in
Seattle; fully half the people I know are either past or current employees
of Microsoft, and therefore highly financially dependent upon the company's
continued success--and since the aftermath of 9/11 gutted Boeing, our
local economy pretty much rises and falls on the fate of Microsoft. But I
don't actually believe that a requirement to release Windows APIs would
hurt Microsoft in the long run. Intel hasn't failed just because AMD has
emerged as a viable competitor. Both companies are going strong, and the
consumer has won out, with rapid development of better processing hardware
and falling prices. The Internet and software industries, and their
enormous body of consumers, would benefit dramatically by a similar
arrangement with regards to Microsoft.
Thanks for your time.
Karawynn Long
Seattle, Washington
MTC-00023529
From: Joe Schafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Microsoft has been providing the most user friendly operating system for
the last 10 or so years.They are able to provide that sevice to the
consumers due to the fact that they continue to be a preditory company.They
feed and prey on smaller companys that aid to the movement of open source
Gnu/Gpl.I for one have noticed this practice increase in intencity and
frequenty ever sence the linux operating system has gained popularity.Which
is poised to steal a good poriton of the market share in the next few
years.I believe that microsoft is a monopoly and hope that they get delt
with accordingly,by law.
Thanks.
Joe Schafer
[email protected]
EarthLink: It's your Internet.
MTC-00023530
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:41pm
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,
Gerard Cecchettini
1279-43rd Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122-1212
MTC-00023531
From: Cosmo S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27334]]
This has gone far enough and this lawsuit must be settled immediately.
Microsoft has done their part and it's times for all others to follow suit.
WE all had the same opportunity to become a microsoft company. Just because
we failed microsoft shouldn't be put through the ringer.
Sincerely,
Cosmo Stallone
MTC-00023532
From: Paul C. Zimmerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I have serious misgivings with the proposed Microsoft settlements. My
discomfort comes from a deep sense that the considered punishments do not
adequately fit the crime. A serious re-consideration of a Microsoft
breakup, I feel, is necessary.
A breakup of Microsoft would have the following benefits:
1) It would deal the greatest punishment to the executive heads of the
company (who most directly orchestrated the company's tactics), and the
least punishment to stockholders who are otherwise not culpable in
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
2) As opposed to any other proposed remedy, a breakup of Microsoft would be
the easiest to implement and enforce, thereby minimizing the long term
burden imposed upon taxpayers.
3) Moreso than any other proposed settlement, a breakup of Microsoft would
ensure that the company cannot resume its anti-competitive behavior.
Breaking Microsoft into three companies--computer operating systems,
computer software, and media--would be the fastest, easiest, most
directed, and least easily exploitable solution to the problem of
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, its skewing of the marketplace, the
burdens that its market dominance places on consumers, and its willful
disregard of prior legal rulings. I urge you to reconsider this remedy.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Zimmerman
Computer Support Specialist
The Dalton School
New York, NY 10128
MTC-00023533
From: Chris Torgerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48pm
Subject: US vs microsoft
Put another vote towards forcing Microsoft to open their Windows source
code to the public. Along with a large financial penalty. My career as a
Java programmer has been hurt by Microsoft's tactics in the Marketplace.
Chris Torgerson
phone: (858) 882-8500 ext. 2320
fax: (858) 882-8501
Technical Manager
email: [email protected]
New Media Merchants
www: http://www.nm2.com
MTC-00023534
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44pm
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,
Margaret Ross
P.O. Box 69364
Odessa,, TX 79769-0364
MTC-00023535
From: Elliot Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I feel the proposed settlement is not strict enough against Microsoft. What
they did was obviously illegal in many ways, and much of it goes unpunished
if the current proposal is followed. However, I'm glad the offer by
Microsoft contribute to our nation's schools was rejected. That proposal
would have only served to boost the company's monopoly by allowing them to
take over the education area, which is currently dominated by other
operating systems.
I agree with Dan Kegel's proposals found here: [http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html], and I have co-signed the letter.
Thank you for continuing this case, and I hope Microsoft tastes justice
before this case ends.
Elliot Jordan
[email protected]
http://students.luther.edu/jordel01
MTC-00023536
From: John Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46pm
Subject: Antitrust and Microsoft
To whom it may concern,
So far the whole process seems to be at a failure point. Microsoft is
getting off relatively free, and is almost assuredly going to be in a
stronger than ever position and certainly able to move in and take over
more and more markets. How did this happen? I realize that the situation is
complex, but Microsoft to too large to be affected my natural selection(or
the business world version of it). Could this even have happened if it were
a Car/Gasoline maker instead of an Computer Operating System/Application
maker? Could the Car/Gas producer have even got to a 95% market ownership?
Would the Government have even let it get that far? Ok, the computer
industry really sort of snuck up on the U.S. Government, that said though,
please do something to correct the situation. What is so far being pushed
through is not the answer...it is certainly not enough.
John Hughes
455 W 46th St #5A
New York, New York
212-262-9237
MTC-00023537
From: Artur Niyazov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46pm
To Whom It May Concern:
It seems like the proposed settlement for Microsoft antitrust trial is
flawed. Because of many different legal loopholes in it, Microsoft will be
able to find ways to easily exploit their customers and OEMs to their
advantage. A great analysis of flaws in the proposed settlement could be
found here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html . Below are my main
complains about the settlement:
1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols.
The complete documentation for these must be made public and be updated in
a timely manner. Closed APIs and file formats are a major barrier to entry,
since virually no company can afford to convert its existing documents into
a new format. Currently anyone using Microsoft products is effectively
``locked in'' to those products because they cannot be easily
converted to another format. While some attempts had been made toproduce
programs and/or libraries that can read and write files in Microsoft's
formats, they are only partially compatible and usually fail on complex
documents. The main reasons for this are undocumented changes in Microsoft
APIs and lack of complete documentation. Anything that can be done to
reduce this barrier can only help to create more opportunity in the market.
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. Allowing Microsoft to continue to take advantage of that
situation by prohibiting those companies from offering alternatives
effectively means allowing Microsoft to continue to hold the industry
hostage.
3) Microsoft's attempts to extend their monopoly in new markets*
Microsoft attempted (often successfully) to extend their monopoly in
several new markets already, using the same monopolistic tactics. Most
prominent examples are:
* 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), and
also to sabotage development Sun Microsystems'' Java language on
Windows platform in favor of their own ``.NET'' system.
[[Page 27335]]
* Audio/Video market, where Microsoft used their OS monopoly to push
products like Windows Media Player and gain unfair advantage over
competitors such as Real Player and QuickTime
* The failed attempt to turn an educational lawsuit into a way to inject
their software into yet another market
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.
Sincerely,
Arthur Niyazov
MTC-00023538
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45pm
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,
Wayne Johnson
38571 Scenic Hwy.
Bovey, MN 55709
MTC-00023539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:44pm
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,
Rose & Charles Theisen
13009 W Sunnyvale Drive
Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026
MTC-00023540
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47pm
Subject: (no subject)
For God's sake back off and let the market place decide. We have the job-
eating asbestos blob- which the government should have restrained years
ago- a veritable slush fund for tort lawyers--and which has caused
numerous bankruptcy of many companies, past, present and future. We have
the ridiculous and extremely costly dredging of the Hudson River by the
government. We have faked lynx hairs by the Federal Parks and Wildlife
Agency to shut down huge area of the Western States. We have a lousy
accounting system that the Congress refused to correct years ago when it
was beiong urged to do so.It would be refreshing if the Governement
addressed these problems, along with the hopelessly complex IRS situation,
before again harrassing one of the really successul entrepreneurs
John McCulloch.
MTC-00023541
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45pm
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,
Cosmo Stallone
804 Cooks Brook Road
Roscoe, NY 12776-7102
MTC-00023542
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45pm
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,
Peter Koufos
9101 West Sahara Avenue
105-153
Las Vegas, NV 89117
MTC-00023543
From: Justin Hilliard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please do not allow their
terms to be accepted. Thank you.
Justin Hilliard
MTC-00023544
From: Nelson, Allan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 9:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The current settlement with Microsoft does nothing to further the public
interest. The weekest aspect of the settlement is the 3 person group who is
to review MS behavior and technology. Historically such entities tend over
a relatively short period of time to become captives of the industries they
attempt to regulate. Further no three humans are capable of giving the kind
of detailed oversight that would be needed to thouroughly vet the masses of
code that MS has released in products over the years.
The settlement also does nothing to punish MS for the monoply behavior that
the company was found guilty of. Indeed with the consent given to the
settlement to MS embrace and extend tactics coupled with the massive cash
reserves of the company mean that MS can engage in a flurry of acquisitions
that will further extend their monopoly. They can acquire companies on the
cutting edge of web services standards development and take those standards
privite. With relatively few changes they can effectively make an emerging
public standard a proprietary one. Leaked internal documents already have
articulated this strategy on MS's part. To inhibit this kind of behavior,
the company should be fined at least half of the cash reserve they have
accumulated because their conviction as a monopolist taints the profits
that the company has received since the release of Windows 3.0.
The courts should also vacate all existing agreements that allow MS any
advantage in terms of gettingg their OS loaded on a PC. Further MS should
be prohibited from making any such agreement in the future.
[[Page 27336]]
Finally only some kind of disclosure that prevents MS from arbitrarily
changing libraries and their interfaces is needed to prevent MS from
capitalizing on the inherent advantage that application developers have if
they work for the company that produces the Operating System.
Allan Nelson
Cooper Industries
Oracle DBA
713.209.8624
MTC-00023545
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:47pm
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,
David Hogan
8105 Lister Street
Philadelphia, PA 19152
MTC-00023546
From: Hari Nair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:50pm
Subject: Comment on anti-trust settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am deeply concerned with the proposed settlement the government has
offered to end the anti-trust case with Microsoft. As no doubt many other
letters have pointed out, the settlement does nothing to prevent further
monopoly abuses by Microsoft.
This is dangerous because Microsoft, having an entrenched monopoly on
desktop computer operating systems, is now extending that monopoly to other
areas, with the pocket PC, the Xbox, and their Windows Media format.
The internet was founded on open standards beyond the control of any one
organization. I am worried that Microsoft will hijack the internet as its
new cash cow if they continue to operate as they have in the past.
If I may suggest a remedy, I would hope the government would begin to
encourage the use of non-Microsoft products in its own agencies. Imposing
behavioral restrictions on Microsoft isn't likely to accomplish anything,
as they have shown little regard such remedies in the past. The government
is a powerful driver of the market, and can level the playing field much
more easily in a constructive way by choosing competing products which can
do the job as well.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Hari Nair
MTC-00023547
From: JPH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the governments handling of this case is bureaucratic, appeasing to
Microsoft (not punishing) and downright pathetic. The U.S. Government and
Microsoft deserve each other if this ``lighthearted'' settlement
is given the Go-ahead. No wonder nothing gets done right, the government
itself runs just like a Windows operating system!
MTC-00023548
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:48pm
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 Clemson
20920 Nectar
Lakewood, CA 90715
MTC-00023549
From: Bill Menner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023549 0001
January 24, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in
U.S. v. Microsoft falls far short of what is needed to put an end
Microsoft's pattern of predatory practices.
This deal does not adequately protect competition and innovation in this
vital sector of our economy, does not go far enough to address consumer
choice, and fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous
ruling against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-
year time frame of the proposed settlement is much too short to deal with
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded its
monopoly power through fear and intimidation.
Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open for
debate. Microsoft has been found liable before the District Court, lost its
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for rehearing in the appellate
court denied, and had its appeal to the Supreme Court turned down. The
courts have decided that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used
that power unlawfully to protect its monopoly.
The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate court's standard
to ``terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past
statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive
activity.'' This proposed settlement fails to do so.
The Deal Fails to Meet the Appellate Court's Remedy Standards
This proposed settlement clearly fails to meet the standards clearly laid
out by the appellate court. In fact, the weak settlement between Microsoft
and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the Court of Appeals
ruling against Microsoft. Here are several examples of where this weak
settlement falls short:
1) The settlement does not address key Microsoft practices found to be
MTC-00023549--0002 llegal by the appellate court, such as the
finding that Microsoft's practice of bolting applications to Windows
through the practice of ``commingling code'' was a violation of
antitrust law. This was considered by many to be among the most significant
violations of the law, but the settlement does not mention it.
2) The settlement abandons the principle that fueled consumer criticism and
which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998: Microsoft's decision to
bind--or ``bolt''--Internet Explorer to the Windows
operating system in order to crush its browser competitor Netscape. This
settlement gives Microsoft ``sole discretion'' to unilaterally
determine that other products or services which don't have anything to do
with operating a computer are nevertheless part of a ``Windows
Operating System product.'' This creates a new exemption from parts of
antitrust law for Microsoft and would leave Microsoft free to bolt
financial services, cable television, or the Internet itself into Windows.
3) The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and instead
guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will survive and be allowed to expand into
new markets.
4) The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against would-be
competitors and to take the intellectual property of competitors doing
business with Microsoft.
5) The proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many key terms,
which
[[Page 27337]]
is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
Loopholes Undermine Strong-Sounding Provisions
The proposed settlement shows that it contains far too many strong-sounding
provisions that are riddled with loopholes. Here are several examples:
The agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information
with other companies in order for non-Microsoft software to work as
intended. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to share information if
that disclosure would harm the company's security or software licensing.
Who gets to decide whether such harm might occur? Microsoft.
The settlement says that Microsoft ``shall not enter into any
agreement'' to pay a software vendor not to develop or distribute
software that would compete with Microsoft's products. However, another
provision permits those payments and deals when they are ``reasonably
necessary.'' The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be
``reasonably necessary?'' Microsoft.
The settlement does nothing to deal with the effects on consumers and
businesses of technologies such as Microsoft's Passport. Passport has been
the subject of numerous privacy and security complaints by national
consumer organizations. However, corporations and governments that place a
high value
MTC-00023549--0003 on system security will be unable
to benefit from competitive security technologies, even if those
technologies are superior to Microsoft's. Why? Microsoft controls their
choices through its monopolies and dominant market share, and still is able
to dictate what technologies it will include.
Enforcement
The weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave Microsoft free
to do practically whatever it wants.
A three-person technical committee will be appointed, which Microsoft
appointing one member, the Department of Justice appointing another, and
the two sides agreeing on the third. This means that Microsoft gets to
appoint half of the members of the group watching over its actions.
The committee is supposed to identify violations of the agreement. But even
if the committee finds violations, the work of that committee cannot be
admitted into court in any enforcement proceeding. This is like allowing a
football referee to throw as many penalty flags as he likes for flagrant
violations on the field, but prohibiting him from marching off any
penalties.
Finally, Microsoft must comply with the lenient restrictions in the
agreement for only five years. This is not long enough for a company found
guilty of violating antitrust law.
The Proposed Settlement fails to Adequately Address Consumer Needs The
settlement does not go far enough to provide greater consumer choice, and
leaves Microsoft in a position that it can continue to charge whatever it
wants for its products.
As a recent Chicago Tribune story said: ``If you believe that what's
good for Microsoft Corp. is good for consumers, the proposed settlement of
the software giant's three-year federal antitrust battle is cause for
celebration. If you believe that consumers would benefit more if Microsoft
could no longer use its Windows monopoly as a springboard into new markets,
you stand to be sorely disappointed.''
In addition, consumer groups have opposed the settlement. Mark Cooper,
director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said:
``Wall Street's view is that Microsoft's business model doesn't
change. If that's the case, we will continue to be afflicted with the same
anti-competitive behavior.''
The Microsoft Monopoly Should not be Exempt from Antitrust Laws Enforcing
federal antitrust laws against monopolies is not new or novel. Antitrust
law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer welfare in this
country for more than a century. The Microsoft case does not represent a
novel application of the law, but is the kind of standard antitrust
enforcement action necessary to insure vigorous competition in all sectors
of today's economy.
These same standards have been applied to monopolies in the past. We do not
have one oil company determining how much we pay for gasoline, but instead
we have suppliers such as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco and Chevron competing with
each other. These companies were all part of the Standard Oil monopoly,
which was dissolved because Standard Oil was found to have violated the
antitrust laws.
Less than 20 years ago, the nation essentially had one telephone
company-- AT&T. After the government sued AT&T for violating
the antitrust laws, the company was broken up, and competition was
introduced in the long distance business. Since competition was introduced
into that market, real prices have declined more than 70 percent, and there
has been more innovation in the past two decades than in most of the
preceding century. Settlement is Based on Flawed Economic Assumption, and
Sets a Bad Precedent Some defenders of the proposed settlement between
Microsoft and the DOJ have adopted the view that settling this case could
somehow revive the slowing U.S. economy. Their motives are good, but their
reasoning is flawed. What economic theory holds that protecting monopolies
is better for stimulating the economy that promoting competition?
Conclusion
The end result is that this proposed settlement allows Microsoft to
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft to use
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. After
more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft,
surely we can--and we must--do much better than this flawed
proposed settlement between the company and the Department of Justice.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
William J. Menner
Grinnell, Iowa
MTC-00023550
From: m cp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
The proposed settlement cannot work. Why do they have the chance to be
anti-competitive, dump crap equipment and software on our children and
schools at an inflated valuation, and come out smelling like roses? If I
was found guilty by the you, I seriously doubt I could say my old 2-button
mouse was worth more than a laugh towards a settlement. It is your DUTY to
be consistent. You need to ask yourself if you would treat an individual
defendant the same way you would treat a corporation.
MTC-00023551
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:51pm
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,
Joan Domrow
5024 Hemlock Ln.
Ft. Wayne, IN 46815-5004
MTC-00023552
From: michael collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
I truly believe Microsoft is a detriment to the software industry and to
fair competition. I'm too busy to review all the public documents on the
subject, therefore I must trust the US court system with this case. Please
do what no other organization can do and break up this monopoly.
thank you
michael collins
San Francisco CA.
MTC-00023553
From: Clay Lenhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:54pm
Subject: Settlement
Illegal actions should be punished. Microsoft should not go unpunished.
Clay Lenhart
MTC-00023554
From: Photozen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement The settlement is really bad.
[[Page 27338]]
MTC-00023555
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:53pm
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,
Martha Schuler
12 Aldridge Ln
Bella Vista, AR 72714
MTC-00023556
From: Scott L. Fields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00023556 0001
I have been in Information Services for all of my professional career. I
started in computer hardware maintenance in the 80's and progressed to
being a Systems Architect today.
As such, I have a historical view of Microsoft, their business practices,
and their attitude toward anyone that isn't them (including the
government). As such, I have established a few points-of-view regarding
them.
1. Microsoft dislikes any technology they do not directly control, and
either will be that technogy outright, or will do anything in their power
destroy it. Cases in point:
a. Stacker
b. OpenGL
c. Netscape Communicator
d. Any OS other than their own on the same hardware platform
2. Microsoft feels above the law. Whenever Microsoft has been charged with
breaking the law, they have a history of litigating it to the point that
the the charging party gives in (settlement or buyout), or the outcome of
such a lawsuit is irrelevant (Netscape).
3. Whenever threatened in the public, they often hide behind the defense
that punishing them would hurt ``innovation''. The truth is that
Microsoft has done VERY little that could be considered innovation. In
fact, Microsoft actively stifles innovation. Again, refer to my first
point. Practically every technology Microsoft pushes existed BEFORE
Microsoft implemented them.
Examples:
Source Vendor Product Microsoft Implementation
Apple Macintosh Windows
Apple Quicktime Media Player
Netscape Communicator Internet Explorer
IBM Plug And Play (AIX) Plug And Play
AOL Instant Messenger MSN Instant Messenger
What is laughable about the above is that Microsoft sounded off about AOL
being a monopoly with Instant Messenger. I found that very hypocritical,
and typical of how they operate.
So, if Microsoft does NOT innovate, then how come they are the largest
software company in the world today? Simple, they have consistently
MTC-00023557
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56pm
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,
Donna Orbegoso
8286 S. Navajo Dr.
Safford, AZ 85546
MTC-00023558
From: Mark Kirby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
Microsoft is continuing to abuse their monopoly in desktop operating
systems to compete in other software markets. If this is allowed to
continue, consumers and competitors will be further harmed. The settlement
offered by DOJ is not strong enough to contain Microsoft's illegal
behavior, and should be reconsidered.
I have personally observed cases where Microsoft has discounted the price
of their desktop operating systems, on the condition that a corporate
customer replace competitive server products. These server products include
electronic mail, electronic commerce, database and internet servers.
Microsoft is also actively integrating these same services into the desktop
and server operating systems.
Any remedy which does not create a competitive environment in operating
system--is doomed to fail. Therefore, please consider remedies which
either:
1. Force Microsoft to license their software ``code'' to
potential competitors.
2. Force Microsoft to ``publish'' (to a limited, controlled
audience) their software ``code'' for the purpose of identifying
links between the operating systems and applications.
3. Force Microsoft to divest either the applications or operating systems
business.
Thank you.
MTC-00023559
From: jeff chasick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59pm
Subject: Re U.S. v. Microsoft case
MTC-00023559-0001
``it is my responsibility oversee the deployment of new technologies
to our company. My position gives me ample freedom to implement whatever
software or hardware I see necessary to keep the company network running
smoothly and to satisfy user requests. Unfortunately, though my position
may give me that freedom, the current software economy cannot.
``I would dearly love to replace all Microsoft technology in my office
with Open Source software, and if the software economy give me as much
freedom as my job did, I would do just that. However, the most defeating
problem is what Microsoft chooses to keep secret--it's network
protocols, the layout of it's Office files, and the precise technology
needed to migrate from their email server.... I am asking the court to
force Microsoft to publish these protocols in detail.
``I am also urging to court to act on future technologies as well.
Microsoft is now planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to it's web of
interdependencies. With it's initiative .Net, whole portions of the web
would be cut off from non-Microsoft technologies. We have seen a glimpse of
the monopolist's vision of the future with the UK and MSN portal, designed
by Microsoft and accessible only with Microsoft technology....''
``Because the most successful competitors in recent years in product
markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly (eg. personal
computer operating systems, Internet browsers, and office productivity
software) have arisen from the open source software community, I believe it
is of extreme importance that any settlement protect and enhance this
community's ability to produce products that provide end-users with viable
choices.
``In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection is not
provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow Microsoft to
continue to hinder the open source software community's efforts.
``The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and licensing
of intellectual property. I fear that any information disclosed by
Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or developers under conditions
of a non-disclosure agreement, thus preventing the implementation of such
protocols in an open source project or product. Another issue I have with
the proposed settlement is the restrictions that are placed on the entities
with which Microsoft must share their API's. In the
[[Page 27339]]
explanations I have seen of the proposed settlement these entities are
restricted to `commercial'' ventures, implying for-profit
status. This is simply wrong and way too restrictive. I believe that to be
truly effective the parties with whom Microsoft should share their
API's and the like should be broadly defined, maybe something like
`any party or entity that could potentially benefit from such
information'. In other words this information should essentially be
in the public domain.''
``This settlement, if implemented as proposed, will serve to entrench
Microsoft's monopolies further, by allowing it to exclude the open source
software community from any future technologies and APIs it develops. As
this community is currently one of Microsoft's most serious competitors, it
seems unbelievable that the proposed settlement will aid Microsoft in
eliminating this `threat'' to their monopolies.
``As an example of the current `problem'' of
Microsoft's monopoly in the OS and office productivity software
markets, I point to the ubiquitous `.doc'' file. This one
proprietary file format I believe is one of the cornerstones of
Microsoft's OS/productivity suite monopoly. Many people I know in the
academic and business communities regularly purchase updated versions of
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their
correspondents send them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The options for
importing these files into 3rd party applications are many; however, having
personally tried a large number of such programs, both free and commercial,
I can safely say that many work well some of the time, none work well all
of the time. The continuing cycle of forced upgrades to maintain
compatibility with correspondents lies at the heart of Microsoft's
monopoly. ``As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that
Microsoft should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the file
formats used by its products to anyone who sends or receives files in such
formats and requests the information.
``Left unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe in the
future. It has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is considering
moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and Office software. In
this case, files created with licensed software and saved in proprietary
formats may be permanently unavailable to the creator or owner of the data
in the file if a user or company chooses to terminate its license. I may
own the copyright of the work I create, but that is of little value if the
only copy of the work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do
not have access.
``Of course the .doc file format is not the only proprietary file
format Microsoft products use, and the arguments above apply equally well
to other products and file formats. The .doc format is likely the most
important however, because text-based documents appear to be the most
commonly shared and transmitted.
``A second cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly is the fact that many
computer manufacturers will not sell computer hardware without a Microsoft
OS. I understand that the proposed settlement will prevent Microsoft from
entering into exclusive arrangements with vendors, but I believe that
stronger protections are required.
``If Microsoft's agreements with computer vendors forced the vendor to
disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the Microsoft products
included, it would help consumers choose products and vendors that were
appropriate to their needs. As an example, I point to Dell which will, as
far as I can tell, not sell a computer without a Microsoft OS and office
productivity suite. If purchasers knew that without these products they
could save some number of dollars, that now often amounts to a sizable
percentage of the computer package purchase price, they could apply
pressure to the vendor to provide alternative (likely less expensive)
products. Microsoft has stated concerns that selling computers without
operating systems equates to software piracy. This assertion is absurd, and
has become irrelevant with Microsoft's newest release of Windows XP, which
requires license activation.
``Having consumers and end-users with more information is clearly in
the public interest. All of what is suggested here concerns supplying
information that enables computer users to make informed decisions, and to
access their own work on their own computer.
``I personally think that is probably a little radical, but then I see
demo copies of Microsoft's XP operating system on all the workbenches of my
local post offices and I do wonder what is going on here. I do not see any
other vendors product demos available there. This seems to indicate
implicit approval of Microsoft products and no other by a government
entity? Thus I am perplexed at the current `penalties'' being
`imposed'' on Microsoft.
They seem to be more of an encouragement for Microsoft to continue in the
same ways it has been and those are the very same ones that brought this
issue to the DOJ in the first place. If these are implemented as currently
stated then fair business practices, innovation and competition are DEAD in
the computer field.
``The Court declares Microsoft operating system products
`criminally compromised intellectual property'. This is a
special state of copyright protection vacancy, under which Microsoft
operating system products lose their patent and copyright protections
exactly five years after their release dates.
``First off, it has one essential characteristic of anything that will
be effective upon Microsoft, simplicity. They feed on loopholes. There are
none in the above. There's nothing they can do about the Fed not protecting
the copyrights their existence depends upon.
``There is nothing for them to cooperate with. ``This doesn't
require any cooperation or good faith from Microsoft, which is also
crucial. (They may actually favor this remedy, however.) ``It does
actually partially break their monopoly. The AOLs and Oracles and Rick
Hohensees of the world can produce thier own alternatives to Windows, based
on older versions of Windows. (I personally have to be very well paid to
look at a Windows desktop, but distastes vary. I use Linux.) ``The
focus is on the software others are dependant on, operating systems. This
leaves Microsoft untouched as to application products such as Office.
.comment: Your Voice Another Approach
Dennis E. Powell
From Florida a careful dissection of Microsoft's attempts to maintain its
monopoly and to create new ones:
``I am a Software Developer who has worked in the industry for almost
30 years. I have used many Microsoft products, and have enjoyed the
increasing abilities of software systems developed by Microsoft. I also
enjoy using other operating systems, but as a software developer, I have to
follow market trends to keep myself fed--regardless of the market
trends. ``However, it is apparent that Microsoft has attempted to
maintain a monopoly on the Internet Web Browser market to any casual
software user. It is more apparent to a software developer who work within
Microsoft operating systems. The technical aspects involved in the
operating system itself, specifically, development with the Microsoft
Foundation Classes and use of ``.Net'' technology marries the
software developer (happily or unhappily so) to Internet Explorer, and the
operating system.
``Furthermore, specific training programs such as MCSE (Microsoft
Certified Software Engineer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution
Developer) are geared towards maintaining the Internet Browser market by
way of gearing Microsoft Certified individuals (who pay for courses and
tests!) to use only Microsoft Products. Operating Systems. Software.
Software Development. In an Internet enabled world, these are the tools for
maintaining a monopoly on the Internet Browser Market.
``One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on the
level that Microsoft Inc. has. Yet that is my point. Nobody should. Freedom
of Choice.
``The newer versions of Windows have the Internet technologies wrapped
in them. This IS an obvious attempt to maintain a monopoly on the Internet
Browser market. They may be able to prove that they did not do it `on
purpose', but they have done it. If I run over a man with my car, and
I broke a traffic law while doing so, the offense is manslaughter. It I
planned to do it (premeditated), it's Murder 1. The fact remains that a man
would be dead.
``Odds are that when this is read, it will be read on a Windows NT 4.0
machine. Why? Because the U.S. Government has certified Windows NT 4.0 as a
secure operating system. Furthermore, this mail message will probably be
read through another one of Microsoft's applications. ``The U.S.
Government, for lack of any other `secure'' operating system,
has gone with the highest bidder. Neil Armstrong quipped about going to the
moon on everything built by the lowest bidder, and here the United States
states that we'll go with the ONLY software manufacturer that creates
an operating system. This seems counterintuitive. Freedom of Choice. If you
need more proof than the software that the reader of this document is
using, and my ability to predict that, I'm at a loss.
``These two points highlight the fact that the average American
consumer is paying
[[Page 27340]]
more than once for the same software--first as consumers, then as
taxpayers. When banks charge twice for ATM withdrawals, we cringe and say
that it may be legal, but it is obviously immoral. Given, the hardware
manufacturer is hiding the price of the operating system on new computer
systems, the fact remains the same.
``This is a sticky situation, but legal recourse in the interest of
the people of the United States (and the rest of the world!) should contain
the following items:
``(1) Microsoft products--or products of any software
manufacturer--must be sold as separate items by computer vendors.
Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other software manufacturers then
also have a chance to compete. Installation of the USER SELECTED software
can remain free.
``(2) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
``(3) The specifications of Microsoft's past, present and future
document and network formats must be made public, so that documents created
in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's AND other operating systems. This is in addition to opening the
Windows Application Program Interface (`windows API', the set
of ``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications for
Windows operating systems), which is already part of the proposed
settlement.
``(4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software Engineering
Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well as insight into
their development process for Operating Systems. SEI level 3 is required by
the United States Government for software companies that supply software to
it (or that was coming in 1999). This certification was created to protect
the government from software manufacturers that had no software development
process. This same certification should protect the average consumer, AND
insight into the Software Development Process for creation of their
operating systems would give software manufacturer's a chance to keep up
with Microsoft.
``(5) Device Driver information for new operating systems MUST be made
public prior to the release of the operating system by a minimum of 6
months. This is VERY important when dealing with future web enabled
embedded devices. This is also very important to the average
consumer--they get a better product!
``This judgment is not only of import to the United States, where it
is a national issue. It is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue, since the
monopoly itself extends to all corners of the world. Judgment in this case
MUST be fair to the consumer, because future cases along these lines will
look toward this precedent. And, in future, it may not be as domestic an
issue.
``Furthermore, if Microsoft Inc. were a foreign company, this would be
seen as a security issue. It should be seen this way despite the fact that
Microsoft is a domestic software manufacturer for the SAME reasons.
``Please realize that the implications in an Internet based society
reach further than the next few years. They affect society ad
infinitum.''
``In summary, I believe the proposed settlement is seriously lacking,
and will, if implemented as proposed, aid Microsoft in its efforts to
hinder its most viable competitors. Any successful settlement must protect
the rights of computer users to choose the products they desire to access
their data.''
MTC-00023560
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56pm
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,
John M. Persel
507 Oakview Dr.
Toms River, NJ 08753
MTC-00023561
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft trial
There are some things I can say, but to keep this short since you must
receive a lot of email, please don't just let Microsoft get away like this,
it's a very important matter and it extends well beyond the computing
world.
MTC-00023562
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56pm
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 R. Duncan
338 Crestwood Dr.
Madison, IN 47250
MTC-00023563
From: Rev. Dr. Andrew Hermetz, D. D., H.M./S.H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What can I say that hasn't already been said?
In our Constitutional Republic and its capitalist underpinnings, there are
clearly defined rules for many situations, circumstances. Adaptable,
flexible, and founded on logic, these standards for self-goverence allow us
to determine when a fellow citizen has stepped outside of prescribed
boundaries...and ``We the People'' have found Microsoft to be
guilty.
For nearly two decades, it had been an open secret among people inside the
computer industry that, from its humble beginnings as a subcontractor for
IBM's original Personal Computer to the World's Largest Software Co. with a
90% lock on every computer sold on the face of the Earth, Microsoft used
any means at their disposal to achieve their goals. Industry insider
testimony at the trial demonstrated this repeatedly. What to do next?
Surely no punishment doled out to Microsoft should be so narrow as to serve
as a loophole for future violations; nor should it be so broad as to be
unenforceable. One thing for sure is that no penalty should be without some
form of future oversight to prevent abuse after the eye of investigators
has been turned to some other matter. An effort to build and maintain a
level playing field will have to utilize some method(s) for opening up some
of the doors kept closed through Microsoft standard operating procedures.
I urge my duly elected public officals to take *real* action in
administrating the penalty phase of this case.
Andrew Hermetz
Dayton, Ohio
Independent Research Engineer
Humanadyne
[email protected]
MTC-00023564
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56pm
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
[[Page 27341]]
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,
Teresa Balanesi
37051 S. Chrisman Rd.
Tracy, CA 95377
MTC-00023565
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:57pm
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,
Lynn Nordeen
2Windy Hill Lane Laguna Hills, CA 92653-6077
MTC-00023566
From: Dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hey All,
I wented to let y'all know that I think the Proposed Settlement is a bad
idea. I am not convinced that the Settlement Proposal as it exists goes far
enough to restrict Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. At very least,
Microsoft needs to publish all of its APIs so that applications can be
developed with the intent to port to windows and non-windows operating
systems without licensing restrictions.
Thanks,
Dave Cotton
[email protected]
MTC-00023567
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am appalled at how Microsoft is being turned loose to repeat its
antitrust violations. Breaking MS up into an Apps half and an OS half would
at least have addressed the problem. The proposed settlement, especially if
implemented by MS in the way they historically do ``comply'' with
such orders, will do almost nothing to keep them from using their OS
monopoly to gain a monopoly in any software they want to. It falls woefully
short of the minimum needed.
Chris Smith
1408 Stoneboro
Richardson TX 75082
MTC-00023568
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:57pm
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,
Udo Walter
76481 Bob Levy Rd. #1
Talisheek, LA 70464
MTC-00023569
From: Ray Morro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft settlement.
I do not believe the current proposed settlement serves the interests of
promoting competition or remedying the impact on the Amercian consumer, nor
does it fully 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 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.
Furthermore, 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.
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,
Raymond Morro
Telecommunications Engineer
Lucent Technologies
Wayne, New Jersey
MTC-00023570
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:59pm
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,
Okey McQuain
227 Evergreen Drive
Elkins, WV 26241-3007
MTC-00023571
From: Scott L. Fields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott L. Fields
4220 River Birch
Fort Worth, TX 76137
Phone: 817-847-7889
MTC-00023572
From: Mary Irvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern:
[[Page 27342]]
I believe that this matter has been litigated long enough. The Government,
Microsoft, and a number of states have determined that the Settlement is
acceptable and I don't think it is in the public interest for the attorneys
general of a few states to drag this out any longer. The public will
ultimately pay for this litigation-past, present, and future-and we have
paid enough.
Stop it now and let everybody get on with their business.
Robert A. Irvin, Taxpayer
MTC-00023573
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01pm
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,
Larry Parker
8134 Vomac Road
Dublin, CA 94568-1442
MTC-00023574
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:01pm
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,
Lee Bonney
1764 S. Holland St
Lakewood, CO 80232
MTC-00023575
From: Frank E. Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the current
proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have
ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices.
Microsoft has been declared guilty of past wrongs, and must now be held
accountable in some measure.
In previous antitrust cases, companies such as the phone company and
Standard oil were broken into pieces (many pieces) in order to restore
competition. Granted, after each breakup, the economy declined a bit.
However, competition was restored and the economy came back stronger than
before. With competition restored, employment will rise and innovation will
be stronger than it has in the past decade.
I say that the DOJ and US government should be putting a stop to
Microsoft's monopoly. Breaking up the company is one way to restore a level
playing field (or competition). Other methods to level the playing field
would be to force them to release their file formats, source code,
protocols, API's or something similar. (However, even that may not be
enough). But the current settlement simply shows that the government no
longer has the power to enforce the laws that control our capitalist
country. Microsoft will continue to do what it has done in the past knowing
that they can get away with it.
Thank you for your time,
Frank E. Friedman
Frank E. Friedman
[email protected]
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellects has intended us to forgo their
use.--Galileo
MTC-00023576
From: Robert Pulaski
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Pulaski
190 Harper Loop
Grants Pass, OR 97527-5338
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats
and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert Pulaski
MTC-00023577
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02pm
Subject: Corruption in the Courts
To whom it may concern,
I am no lawyer, but I am a United States Citizen, and as such, I find the
Microsoft settlement disturbing. From my view the only possible explanation
is corruption on the part of Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly. She has
effectively eliminated any impediment to an absolute monopoly by Microsoft
Corporation, and done irreparable harm to the antitrust laws in the United
States. In the future, any monopolist can use these proceedings as
precedent to completely ignore US Antitrust law. I not only urge that the
Justice Department review this case, but that Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly
be investigated for her obvious complicity with Microsoft.
Regards,
Doug Reed
Redondo Beach
California
MTC-00023578
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03pm
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,
Dennis Franklin
[[Page 27343]]
RT.#3, 4113 Bennett Ave.
Billings, MT 59105
MTC-00023579
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:03pm
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,
Robert L. & Joyce Jenkel
587 E. Conestoga Circle
Grand Junction, CO 81504-7004
MTC-00023580
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:02pm
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 Mullins
329 Riverside Drive
Logan, WV 25601-4033
MTC-00023581
From: Sharon Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement case
I believe Microsoft used its enormous size and its dominance in the
operating system market to essentially eliminate its competition in the
browser market.
They have done the same thing in many other areas of software development.
How can new business start up if they don?t having a fighting chance
against Microsoft. He has all the money and power to wipe out any new
business that may appear.
The monopolistic, anti-competitive practice will continue to grow with the
growth of MSN, the Passport service, Windows XP.
I disagree with the settlement proposed by the Dept of Justice, it does
nothing to stop these practices by Microsoft.
Yours sincerely,
Lucille Khornak.
MTC-00023582
From: Tom Kazunas
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/24/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust
The proposed Department of Justice/Microsoft settlement is NOT a sufficient
remedy for Microsoft's monopolistic business practices. A United States
federal appeals court has determined that Microsoft is guilty of numerous
antitrust law violations, yet Microsoft blatantly continues those same
practices. I sincerely hope you will reward Microsoft's scorn with an
appropriately severe penalty.
Thank you
Tom Kazunas
Madison, WI
MTC-00023583
From: Chris Dennin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I writing this note in response to the Microsoft Settlement. I feel
Microsoft should be punished for their strong arm tactics over the past
several years and punished severely. However I do not think it should be
crippling and here is my 2 part proposal.
Part 1:Microsoft should be required to make their existing software code
available to everyone much in the same way Linux does.
Part 2: Whatever the dollar figure Microsoft is to be fined. The courts
should multiply it by 5 and allow them to pay it off over 20 years, much
the same way the Tobacco Settlement was designed. The fine should be paid
only in CASH only. Not software or hardware and should be paid directly to
the States to do with as they please.
Regards,
Christopher G. Dennin
8701 Shore Road
Brooklyn N.Y. 11209
MTC-00023584
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04pm
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,
Charles N Culp
501 Kennard ave
Edgewood, MD 21040
MTC-00023587
From: Jim Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am witting to say that I am strongly against the proposed Microsoft
settlement. The only effect it will have on Microsoft's business practices
is to *increase* their Monopoly hold on much of the computer industries. It
fails to really address many key areas including the need to have only open
(documented and freely available) protocols and file formats.
The sole purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the
*people*. IT is clear that no one was thinking of the people when this
settlement was drafted. --
Jim Bauer, [email protected]
Elkridge MD, US
MTC-00023588
From: Lana Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08pm
Subject: Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, please have the department back
away from
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, please have the department back away from
the Microsoft case. The first go-round of the case against them began the
downward spiral of our economy in March of 2000--this will not enhance
our prospects for recovery. The case is needless and flies in the face of
free enterprise!
Please take care of yourself and get some well-needed--earned rest,
you have bigger fish to fry in regards to ensuring our nation's safety. I
know you inherited a lot of this from you-know-who's administration, but
let's keep on with the truly important things, preservation of life and
security issues.
I am so proud to know you and to have supported you and Janet in your
campaigns for office. I hope your family is all doing well and that Jimmy
is getting more delightful with each passing day. I missed your Christmas
card this year with an update, too!
Warmest regards,
Lana R. Taylor
1318 E. 152nd Terrace
Olathe, KS 66062-6707
913 764-6646
MTC-00023589
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:05pm
[[Page 27344]]
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,
Bill Hutson
406 Lincoln
Deer Park, TX 77536-6250
MTC-00023590
From: Howard C Woodard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In response to the public comment period to the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I would like to voice my opinion.
I think enough of taxpayer resources have been expended on this case. It
should be settled at once to allow the resources to be used on other legal
needs.
I never agreed with the charges and effort. I see it setting a dangerous
legal precedent.
Companies who cannot compete with an innovative organization will come to
the government and use taxpayer resources to help them do what they were
unable to do in the market place.
The market will always solve these problems in the long run and should be
left to do so.
If you review the history of anti-trust cases almost every case cured a
problem that no longer existed because the market had moved on to newer
technology.
Settle the case and allow Microsoft to provide the products that the public
demands.
Sincerely,
Howard C. Woodard, CCP, CCNA, CCAI
Associate Professor of Information Systems & Communications
MTC-00023592
From: Gordie Freedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing under the Tunney Act concerning the proposed Microsoft
Settlement (United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232).
I believe the settlement is unfair, as it will not serve to end Microsoft's
unlawful conduct, and does not adequately penalize Microsoft for it's
unlawful conduct. I have co-signed a petition which details my position in
greater detail, and am writing this to officially note my opinion as
allowed by the Tunney Act.
Thank you very much,
Gordon Freedman
MTC-00023593
From: Kyle Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft anti-trust case is about one thing alone. It is about a
company, that has become so dominant as to be able to deprive others,
including competing software companies, of our right to the freedom to
compete. Microsoft has absolutely done that, and they continue to do it.
This fight is a fight for our freedom to build the software that we want to
build. Microsoft will never allow us to build software well, that competes
with anything they offer.
I ask of the judge, please *DO NOT* support the Bush settlement. The only
people saying it will fix the problems is Ashcroft, Bush, and Bill Gates.
All of which have financially benefited from Microsoft. America's
entrepreneurs are being deprived of our freedom to compete.
That is what this case is all about. I have read that Rupert Murdoch is
scared of Microsoft's control and that makes me even more scared. The
*only* hope is at your feet judge. Please throw down the politically and
financially motivated Bush/Ashcroft settlement and return to America's
entrepreneurs, our right and the freedom to compete with Microsoft.
As it stands now, they control who competes, and they are making decisions
that deprive of us of our rights to compete.
This case is a lot simpler than it would seem.
Kyle Lussier
AutoNOC LLC
770 222-0991 x15
770 222-0998
MTC-00023594
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read over the text regarding this issue, and many commentaries. I am
completely against the settlement as proposed, and my opinions follow:
1. When I buy a new computer, I want a choice of OS. Since Microsoft began
coercing OEM's to *only* install Microsoft products, there has sadly been
little choice of OS. A few IBM computers with OS/2 were available once, and
now one or two are available with Linux, but that is about it. One has to
search far and wide to find any kind of pre-installed choice on a new
machine. If I am going to buy a new machine and replace the Microsoft
product [with FreeBSD, at this point], I don't want to have to pay the
extra price for the Microsoft License I will not use, and I don't want
Microsoft getting any of my hard-earned money. That is what choice is
about--deciding who will get my money.
2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document file
formats must be made public, so that documents created in Microsoft
applications may be read by programs from other vendor's programs [whether
it be word processor, spreadsheet or database], in addition to the APIs,
already part of the settlement.
3. Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and
*approved* by an independent network protocol body before they can be
implemented. This would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of
the Internet, and maybe even prevent some of the glaring security flaws in
their software [mail programs and server OS's alike].
I'm not anti-Microsoft.. I just want to make sure that there is fair
competition. Customer satisfaction resulting from experience with a number
of different OS's should be the standard by which the ``best'' OS
is determined, not the marketing arm of Microsoft.
As it stands, IBM's OS/2 Warp 4.0 is *still* an entirely better product for
desktop computing than anything Microsoft has yet to unveil. IBM just
couldn't conceive of stooping to their level to market their software.
In the end, capitalism, to work effectively, requires competition. This
settlement doesn't allow that.
J. Marshall Smith
St. Louis, MO
System Administrator
Amateur Radio Callsign N0OCT
MTC-00023595
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09pm
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 McDermott
790 Birch St
J.C., OR 97448
MTC-00023596
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27345]]
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,
Phillip Reynolds
25844 May Street
Edwardsburg, MI 49112-9149
MTC-00023597
From: normdn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to log my opinion re the importance of the DoJ coming to a
quick and fair settlement. The courts earlier offer I thought was a fair
and generous one and was disappointed to see that the judge overseeing did
not agree. It is time for the DoJ and the other states that did not go
along with the initial settlement to bring this to a speedy recovery. I was
especially disapointed to see that my own state of Iowa did not join in the
earlier settlement offer and decided to continue to spend my tax payer on
continued litigation. The only benefactors of this continues to be the
lawyers. I was also disappointed to see that AOL has now joined to try to
get an additional piece of the pie. Netscape did not gain market share
because they were trying to milk the consumer for additional revenue for a
service that a competitor was able to offer for free. Getting out smarted
should not be the basis of litigation in the open marketplace. It is only
hurting consumers such as myself and the free enterprise system if
companies such as Microsoft are forced to continue to battle and sacrifice
vital research and develpement dollars to defend themselves. AOl appears
now to try want to salvage their overpayment(billions) for Netscape by
taking advantage of the DoJ's incapacity to accept a valid legal settlement
agreement with continued interferance and indecision. Its time to move on
and let the free marketplace and the consumer decide who are winners and
who are losers. And its time for the DoJ to do the same and turn their
energies to more important pressing national security issues. Thanks for
the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Respectfully,
Norman D Nieuwenhuis
Orange City, IA
MTC-00023598
From: Sebastian Mindling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a really bad idea. It does little in
quite a few areas to restrict Microsoft from engaging in anti-competetive
business practices, and specifically in sections III.D. and E. it severely
restricts any non-Microsoft implementations of the Windows APIs. This is a
key failure, given that some of Microsoft's strongest competition comes
from open source projects like Linux and WINE.
Thank you,
Sebastian Mindling
Lithocraft Inc.
MTC-00023599
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For what MS has done, they deserve far more punishment than they are
receiving in this settlement. It also appears to me that these conditions
will do little to prevent similar behavior in the future. There is also the
troubling matter of MS's unwillingness to cooperate with extenal parties to
provide adequate security for its products. Given their ubitquity, this is
a public health and national security concern. These settlement conditions
are simply too favorable to MS, and too weak to provide protection to non-
MS entities.
MTC-00023600
From: shillmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15pm
Subject: Public Comment
Your Honor,
I have watched the personel computer industry mature for 17 years. During
that time I have seen Microsoft steal, copy, or otherwise take some of the
best ideas and products of smaller firms and talented individuals, disguise
them as a Microsoft innovation and bundle it with their Windows operating
system, effectively snuffing the life out of smaller, less powerful
companies and individuals. If they can not steal the idea, they buy it and
let it die on the vine. If you agree to this settlement, computer
innovation will be what Mr. Gates says it should be. This industry is too
vital to the future of the world economy to let it be controlled by one man
or one company.
I urge you to reject this settlement offer. Do not let Microsoft, an
illegal monopoly, get away with a slap on the wrist. They have abused their
power in the market palce and acheived their dominant position in the
industry by violating the law. They were found guilty and should be
effectively punished. The punishment should open the doors to competition
which will inevitably stimulate the flow of new ideas in this country and
others. Competition is critical to today's information economy and I
believe will ultimately force Microsoft to become a better software
company. Please do not let the political motivations of the Bush justice
department override the sound judgement of the trial judge who seemed to
have an understanding, at a fundamental level, of the importance of a
strong remedy in this critical case.
I would like to see at least two Microsoft divisions; operating system and
applications. Outside application developers should have the same access to
operating system interfaces as the Microsoft application company. This plan
is of course not original with me but gets to the heart of the matter. I do
my computing on the Macintosh platform as it remains one of the last havens
of forward thinking in the industry. Unfurtunately, even Apple Computer is
threatened continuously with extinction by the monopolist in Seattle who
continue to copy Apple ideas to this day.
Thank you for your time.
Scott J. Hillmann, MD
MTC-00023601
From: Roger Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I think the Justice Department should drop all action against Microsoft and
let the company get back to normal operations. Penalizing Microsoft for
being a World leader in technology and providing this country with
balancing exports to offset our dreadful trade deficits is sending the
wrong message. It just isn't the American way to punish success.
Sincerely,
Roger G. Townsend
1471 West Genesee Rd.
Baldwinsville, NY 13027-9665
MTC-00023602
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:12pm
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,
Tony Wright
104 Southfork Drive
Waynesboro, VA 22980-9363
MTC-00023603
From: Stephen D. Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a software engineer with over 19 years of experience who is also a
consultant to the government, businessman, and consumer, I would like to
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment [http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/
[[Page 27346]]
cases/ms-settle.htm] in United States v. Microsoft.
Language in the agreement:
Specific complaints:
Definitions that indicate that only commercial products are covered
completely excludes open source ``products'', projects,
cooperatives, or even use by individuals. Open source projects are often
the only viable alternatives to many Microsoft products that have reached
effective monopoly status in the commercial marketplace. In addition to the
basic operating system, this includes all kinds of middleware, office
software, many communications components, project scheduling, closed
authentication systems, and undocumented protocols, apis, and file formats.
OEMs, hardware vendors, large users, ISVs, and ISPs should be held at arms
length and not be coerced with regard to any potentially competitive
product, bundle, interface, etc.
Enforcement is extremely weak and based on past Microsoft disregard for
even federal gov. agreements, this agreement has no teeth to accomplish
anything. Microsoft will stall and buy its way out of any attempted action
on this plan with resources that are a miniscule fraction of the benefit it
drives from past, present, and future illegal monopoly maintenance and
collusion.
General comments:
The computing industry, contrary to the simplistic views of non-technical
consumers saturated with Microsoft marketing, has been severely held back
by the lack of competition in many areas caused by the Microsoft monopoly
and Microsofts repeated and pervasive illegal efforts. My estimate has been
that we are 10 years behind where we would have been had there been an open
operating system, office product, development environment, etc. Progress
made in the last five years on GNU/Linux and other software projects seems
to bear this out. Unless anti-competitive actions are terminated with
extreme measures, the economy and progress in technology and society will
continue to suffer greatly.
It is telling that the Only attempts that even go beyond planning in many
application areas are open source projects where Microsoft can't buy the
company or product out of existance, or otherwise prevent a viable market.
The barriers to entry are gigantic in any commercial space where Microsoft
has been able to extend and tie to the existing monopoly pool, beginning
with the operating system and office software. Microsoft will continue to
thwart the spirit of antitrust/Sherman Act law and therefore constitutes a
threat to the proper function of American commercial activity. Without
competition and with an ever increasing breadth of product, there is
potentially no end to the number of industries, products, services, and
everyday actions that Microsoft may control, benefit from, and essentially
to tax as a sovereign entity.
sdw --
Stephen D. Williams
Former Consultant to AOL (1995-1998)
High Performance Technology, Inc.--Senior Technical Director
Concinnous Consulting, Inc.--President and Senior Consultant
43392 Wayside Circle
Ashburn, VA 20147-4622
703-724-0118 703-371-9362 Mobile
MTC-00023604
From: Thomas Keefe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15pm
Subject: settlement
Please settle this case..I believe it is harmful to every citizen that
companies choose to litigate rather than to compete. I do not believe the
public has been harmed because Microsoft has consistently developed a
better product. Remember the way people waited in line for hours to be able
to get the latest product???
Nobody made them be there. They were excited because it was a Microsoft
product. I also feel that the stock market has gone into a free fall with
every threat (by lawsuit) of a competitor. I think the very real fear here
is if the Justice Department can disrupt Microsoft in the way that it has
what chance would a smaller start up have if they became competitive?? This
lawsuit has had a damaging effect on the whole country and it's values. I
do not understand how if AOL was willing to pay BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR
NETSCAPE how they were hurt financially. AOL has not done anything to
enhance Netscape since they purchased it...How is that Microsofts fault???
Thank You , Ann & Tom Keefe
MTC-00023605
From: Roy Bixler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roy Bixler
1312 E. 53rd St.
Apt. 211
Chicago, IL 60615
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As a systems administrator and programmer, I have followed the Microsoft
anti-trust case with great interest and would now like to comment on the
Proposed Final Judgement. While the Judgement's goal of ``prompt,
certain and effective relief'' is an admirable one, I fear that the
proposal, if approved, would fall short of bringing effective relief.
Particularly, release of Windows interoperability information to
independent developers is a step in the right direction, but the
Judgement's provisions do not go far enough. The problem of Microsoft's
monopoly will continue unless their ability to impose proprietary standards
is curtailed.
Open Source Software such as the Linux operating system and the KDE desktop
have been mentioned in the trial as potential competitors to Microsoft, but
there is no provision in the Judgement explicitly allowing Open Source
developers access to interoperability information. Right now, Open Source
desktops are a niche in the market and, for example, if the developers of
Open Source desktops had access to information on Word document file
formats, the opportunity for market gains would increase. But, since the
Word document format is secret and only Microsoft software can be fully
compatible, businesses are stuck with requiring Microsoft software for
internal and external collaboration.
Another example is the Kerberos Authentication Protocol. This was
originally an open standard developed at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Eventually Microsoft adopted it for Windows 2000
authentication. However, there is a secret authorisation field in
Microsoft's implementation and, as a result, only a Windows server can
authenticate Windows clients. Microsoft does not yet possess monopoly power
in the server market, but this proprietary pollution of an open standard is
an attempt to attain a server operating systems monopoly by leveraging
their overwhelming market share in client operating systems. Requiring
Microsoft to disclose interoperability information to open source software
developers would allow savvy Chief Technology Officers to better manage
their dependencies on Microsoft, an already dominant vendor.
It is my hope that access of Microsoft interoperability information to open
source developers can create a more competitive market in PC operating
systems and maintain a level playing field in competition for the market in
server operating systems. Such access would not impinge Microsoft's ability
to ``innovate'', but it curtails their ability to stifle
competition.
Respectfully,
Roy Bixler
[email protected]
24 January 2002
MTC-00023606
From: Helga Walter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft agreement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530-0001
Dear Mr.. Ashcroft:
I am happy to hear that Microsoft and the government have reached an
agreement. I think Microsoft has conducted itself appropriately as a
corporate citizen throughout this entire ordeal, and think what they have
agreed to do is fair for all.
If I understand it correctly, Microsoft has agreed to establish a
``Technical Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's compliance
with the settlement and assist with dispute resolution, as well as agreed
to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were
actually at issue in the suit, for the sake of wrapping up the suit, and
has granted computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included
within Windows. Mr.. Ashcroft, this settlement shows the kind of company
Microsoft has always been and that is a company that cares not only about
sales, but also about the consumer's needs and abilities to have access to
its innovative product. I support this settlement, and hope it will be
approved at the end of this comment period.
[[Page 27347]]
Sincerely,
Helga Walter
MTC-00023607
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:14pm
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,
Richard Kidd
1090 Yale Farm Rd.
Romulus, NY 14541
MTC-00023608
From: Randy Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft Corporation. I
am a software engineer, working for a large corporation. Although
Microsoft/Intel (or Wintel) platforms are not my most common development
target, I have done some work in that area. Although Microsoft has some
fine products for software development, I have also experienced the pain
and annoyance of dealing with Microsoft ``extensions'' or
alterations to industry standard interfaces, chiefly POSIX, HTML, and the
DCE RPC API in my experience. Microsoft clearly implements these changes to
make software developed for their platform incompatible with software
developed on other development platforms *that follow the same standards*.
I see nothing in the Proposed Final Judgement that would prohibit this
practice.
Further, I note that Section III.A.2 of the PFJ fails to prohibit Microsoft
from retaliating against OEMs who might choose to ship some systems with a
competing OS and NO Microsoft OS. In other words, as I read it, Microsoft
is only forced to allow coexistence of other OSes with theirs. This seems
to drastically subvert the purposes of the suit.
I believe there are probably other flaws and loopholes in the proposed
agreement, but I don't have time to comment on all of them.
Please take the above problems into consideration and alter the settlement.
Thank you,
Randall B. Campbell
MTC-00023609
From: Mike (038) Amy Coutinho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am very displeased with the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the
United States Department of Justice. If the settlement were to go through
as it stands now, there would be no benefit to the consumer. The settlement
is a bad idea.
Microsoft has played unfairly in the computer industry, hiding their API's,
making secret deals, purchasing companies to decimate markets and in
general not playing well with others. Please make Microsoft pay for what
they have done.
I have never met a person who was excited to shell out $400 for office, nor
have I met anyone who can say they ``love'' all the great
features of windows.
mike coutinho
614-475-1677 --
MTC-00023610
From: Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My Name is Neal R. Haslam.
I wish to have my comments included among those who do not agree with the
Microsoft settlement. I have done a great deal of reading on both sides of
the issue and personally feel that We, the American People, will not be
best served by the settlement as it stands.
I believe that a portion of our freedoms are at risk. I believe the
settlement will allow Microsoft to continue its current practices without
consequence. I believe We are exposing Our collective selves to a psuedo-
governence by a corporate monopoly.
We all know that societal computer networking, internetworking for the
purpose of exchanging and storing personal and financial data, is
increasing rapidily. It is becoming the means by which our banking,
education, entertainment and even health care will be recorded and tracked.
Standardization of those records is mandatory, but allowing a single
corporate entity, who holds its own pecuniary interests paramount, to set
those standards is contrary to the American way or life.
Please do not let that happen. America is willing to wait to have the issue
thoroughly evaluated and solutions properly developed. Let's do it right.
Neal R. Haslam
500 Bayview Terrace
McAdoo, PA 182387
MTC-00023611
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I HAVE WATCHED THIS FROM THE START. MR. GATES & COMPANY HAVE DONE
NOTHING BUT STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK AND MAKE A HUGE FORTUNE OUT OF IT
WHILE WREAKING HAVOC ON THE CONSUMERS. THEIR DOS SYSTEM WAS NOT THE BEST SO
WHAT DID THEY DO ? THEY DROVE DIGITAL RESEARCH OUT OF BUSINESS AND THE
OWNER COMMITTED SUICIDE (OR SO I HEAR). THEY TRASHED NETSCAPE WHEN IT WAS
FAR BETTER THAN EXPLORER, DUE TO THEIR BUNDLING AND THEY WITH HELD THE
SOURCE CODES FROM IBM FOR W95 UNTIL THE DAY IT WAS RELEASED WHICH COST IBM
$24 MILLION DOLLARS. THE BIG SECURITY HOLE THAT WAS FOUND IN XP APPLIES TO
ALL THEIR INTERNET EXPLORER PACKAGES (I FOUND THIS OUT BECAUSE I USE W98,
NT, APPLE OS-X AND OS-9) AND ALL THE FIXES WERE RELEASED THE SAME DAY. THE
DAY MICROSOFT LOST THE SUIT I BOUGHT AN APPLE IMAC. I HAVE NEVER BEEN
HAPPIER WITH ANY COMPUTER (EXCEPT PROBABLY THE FIRST ONE I BOUGHT IN 1987)
AND SINCE MAC OS-X HAS BEEN RELEASED THIS IS A DREAM. AFTER LOOKING AT OS-X
AND WINDOWS NT I FOUND OUT THAT NT IS ALSO A RIP OFF OF UNIX. THANK MR.
GATES FOR CREATING ANOTHER COMPLETE DISASTER OUT OF A GOOD OPERATING
SYSTEM. NOW I HEARD THAT M/S WANTS TO SETTLE ANOTHER SUIT BY GIVING A
BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF THEIR OPERATING SYSTEM RUNNING ON REFURBISHED
COMPUTERS TO SCHOOLS BUT THE LICENSE IS ONLY GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS (THIS WAS
REJECTED BY THE COURT, THANK GOD). MR. GATES WANTS A DIGITAL WORLD BUT WITH
ALL THE FEES AND ROYALTIES IN HIS POCKET. THIS PREDATORY MONOPOLY MUST BE
STOPPED AND THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN DO IT IS THE FEDS.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME- FRANK SADLO
MTC-00023612
From: corky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ
I do not come from your country. But I feel the way you have caved into
Microsoft, effects me and indeed everybody that has to put up with
Microsoft's blatant and deliberate quest to quell free choice and to keep
its monopoly of a huge section of the IT market.
Your department is known around the world as one of the leaders in
protecting the rights of the individual. Your settlement with Microsoft is
a mockery of those ideals. The people you clam to protect are now powerless
and frustrated. The awful truth is staring them in the face. The DOJ can be
bought like any politician or police man. There is nobody left to protect
them.
Liam
MTC-00023613
From: Bill Treadway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft and Mr. Gates have laid waste to hundreds of companies, partners
and competitors in the world of personal computers. It is true that they
are better business men than most of their victims.
[[Page 27348]]
Unfortunately they have also been shown to be liars and law breakers. Those
of us who use computers to make our living (as opposed to those of us who
make our living off of computer users) pay daily for the lack of choice and
the half assed implementations that we HAVE to use. We have to use them
because Microsoft has been able, through illegal and unethical means to
amass such a huge position of control of the market place.
I'm sure that the damage they have done to computer users, shareholders of
other companies and the economy in general can never be repaired but you
can keep it from getting worse. If you simply make them sit in a corner, or
(even worse allow this giveaway of hardware and software instead of money)
to be their punishment they will simply smirkl at your ignorance and
continue in their foul and arrogant fashion. You have the power to put a
stop to this and injejct some variety and competition into this market
again . . .don't blow it.
Bill Treadway
The Treadway Realty Group
Helping our clients sell, buy and finance their homes.
Find out how much better you do when enthusiastic professionals help you!
281-639-4444 Office
281-265-0117 Fax
[email protected]
www.treadwayrealtygroup.com
MTC-00023614
From: Grant Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Suit
I am an individual that makes a living from computers and computer
networks. As such. I have worked around computers, operating systems, and
the Internet for over 10 years. I have tried to keep up with the Microsoft
antitrust suit over the last several years and I must say I was very
optimistic about how the suit was going until recently. Microsoft, in
typical fashion, showed their arrogance by trying to buy public opinion,
fabricate evidence, and in general avoid the issues and lie about their
monopoly practices. After the issues with Judge Jackson and his public
comments, it seems as if Microsoft is going to get away with exercising
their monopoly power because the Justice department wants to avoid a long
drawn out legal process. At this point, it seems that the Justice
Department is seeking the path of least resistance and intends to give
Microsoft a figurative slap on the wrist and make them promise to be good.
In my opinion, this would be tragic. The US Government itself has had
assets and information put at risk because of the insecurity and
unreliability of Microsoft products. For this and their monopolistic
practices, they need to be levied with real punitive action that will have
a permanent positive effect on the behavior of this software monopoly. To
merely levy fines and extract hollow promises to try to do better from
Microsoft is the wrong approach to take. Microsoft needs to either be
reorganized or forced to open up their APIs and potentially their source
code to foster some competition. They should also be required to void all
of the exclusive agreements with computer companies regarding what
opearting systems and software can be placed on their systems. Microsoft
already controls the desktop, the default start page for most people, most
of the desktop operating system, and many of the applications used by most
people. Would the US Government sole source this many components of any
critical infrastructure from the same supplier?
Grant Shackelford
Louisville, KY
MTC-00023615
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:19pm
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,
Dean Hoffman
12908 Hennen Rd
Burnsville, MN 55337
MTC-00023616
From: Anne Reuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am writing to you to express my concern about the Microsoft settlement.
Over the years, Microsoft has become a monopoly that dominates the
technological world we live in at work as well as at home. It is apparent
that Microsoft is a part of our daily lives as we send e-mails, compose
letters via word processing, develop databases, prepare spreadsheets, etc?
It seems we have no choice but to use Microsoft! This monopoly in turn has
created shortfalls: poor quality software as well as lack of customer
support. A company such as Microsoft does not prevail because they have a
product worthy of public support but because they have violated anti-trust
laws and have eradicated and/or removed any competition that challenges
their market share.
Because of the lack of competition, Microsoft has dominated our lives in
the past decade. How can we say we have a free, open and competitive
market, if we continue to allow one company to monopolize the technology
market. I trust that the United States government will do the ?right thing?
by imposing an adequate sanction on Microsoft for anti-trust violations as
well as insure that Microsoft no longer has an edge over the competition.
Otherwise the time spent by the Department of Justice as well as the
taxpayers money will have been a waste and it will be business as usual.
What message do we send to our youth and children if business continues as
usual? I believe we are sending the message the if you are a powerful
company such as Microsoft you can circumvent the law.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to voice my concerns.
A. Reuter
MTC-00023617
From: Dave Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24pm
Subject: You guys are missing the boat!
Hello,
Please don't miss this point . . . Microsoft's monopoly extends
back to 1996 when they killed all competition in the word processor market
by introducing ``MSWord for Windows'' at $99. At the time,
Wordperfect dominated and Microsoft's calculated cut-throat $99 new price
point for Word basically killed the $400 Wordperfect.
Microsoft survived that price point because revenue from the OS division
funded this monopolistic move. It's also common knowledge that Microsoft
did not share Windows technology with Wordperfect at that time which let
them gain timing advantages.
THE PROBLEM IS NOW IN 2002, with Wordperfect and others removed, Microsoft
raised the price up to $375 list price for Word. What happened to the $99
word processor? All competition was eliminated by this tactic. They killed
many companies by outliving them at that price, then raised the price after
they were gone. THERE IS NO MORE CLEAR MONOPOLY MOVE THAN THAT! ALL
CONSUMERS ARE HURT BY THIS ACTION. $99 WAS THE PRICE THEN, NOW IT IS $375.
Why. Extra features as they claim? No way. They eliminated the competition.
HELP US PLEASE!!!!! Break them up. HELP US!
Dave Dahl
MTC-00023618
From: Don Schaper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not enact this settlement without some real, court-mandated &
court-supervised, enforcement mechanisms.
Don Schaper
4411 Blaisdell Ave So
Minneapolis MN 55409
612-871-7287
MTC-00023619
From: Nora Rousso (038) Jonathan Jackel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25pm
Subject: I respectfully disagree with the decision to settle the
government's case against Microsoft. You ma
I respectfully disagree with the decision to settle the government's case
against Microsoft. You may notice that this email was sent via Microsoft
Outlook. Until @home
[[Page 27349]]
crashed, I was a loyal Netscape user for email and internet browsing. After
the system went down, I was virtually forced to adopt Internet Explorer and
Outlook for browsing and e-mail, because A T T would support users with
those programs but not Netscape. I deeply resent that choice has been taken
away from me, and the settlement you propose will do nothing to deter
Microsoft's heavy handed tactics and market domination.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Nora Rousso
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023620
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22pm
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 Van Hare
Apartment 105
3300 Woodstone Drive East
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-2548
MTC-00023621
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22pm
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,
CAROLYN MACY
10620 sw 27th Ave., A-120
OCALA, FL 34476
MTC-00023622
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22pm
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,
CAROLYN MACY
10620 sw 27th Ave., A-120
OCALA, FL 34476
MTC-00023623
From: Kyle Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This whole case can be summed up in one simple sentence:
Microsoft and Bush are depriving us of our right to compete. That is why
the *government* (if there are any non-corrupt members of it left) *NEED*
to do something about it. Microsoft (and now Bush by cutting a deal with
Microsoft) are depriving us of our right to compete.
It's that simple.
Kyle Lussier
AutoNOC LLC
MTC-00023624
From: Larry Hammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I do not support the proposed resolution as presently prposed by the DOJ.
I would like to voice my concern of how the Proposed Judgement ( settlement
as proposed by the DOJ ) fails to address or redress the fact that
Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its
applications to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
As a consumer I feel that I have been forced to purchase and run Microsoft
Operating Systems inorder to support and run productivity software or other
software applications produce by Microsoft or other vendors. Those
applications recceiving Microsoft support or approval seem to survive where
as those that do not are buried in the marketplace as a result of this ,
rather than consumer choice.
I would like to add my voice to support the nine states who do not agree
with the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I would like to see greater
selection and competition in the market place. If the DOJ sttlement is
accepted then competition would be eliminated and Microsoft left as the
sole software/operating system company.
Larry Hammer
104 Astrid Court
Williamsburg, VA 23188
MTC-00023625
From: Jim Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
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.
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
www.rocknroseranch.com /JLR
MTC-00023626
From: Bob Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I am appalled at your decision not to split up Microsoft as originally
planned. Microsoft is a predatory behemoth that is stifling competition and
intruding perniciously into everyone's life. I beg you to reconsider the
states'' solution. Microsoft is clearly a monopoly. Not to see this
and address it in a more punitive way is to to be guilty of colluding with
a company that has way too much power. I had counted on you to do the right
thing and you disappointed me. You have reduced my choices. Already my ISP
will accept only one browser, Internet Explorer. Your settlement
underscores my belief that the federal government knows little about what's
best for it citizenry and even less about what is best for the
entrepreneurial spirit of American business.
Disappointed, Victimized, and Afraid,
R. Fulton Johnson
MTC-00023627
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is more than fair. It ought to be stopped now with
no more litigation, and Microsoft should be left alone. Enough is enough.
Robert.L Dunn.
MTC-00023628
From: Erik Michaels-Ober
[[Page 27350]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
I find the settlement in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft unacceptable for the
following reasons:
(1) It will not change the fact that most all desktop computers are
distributed with Microsoft's Windows operating system. This has to do with
contracts between Microsoft and computer hardware vendors to include the
Windows operating system on all new computers sold. This leads to an
increased cost to the end user who might be satisfied with a free
alternative to Windows but does not know that such alternatives exist.
(2) It allows Microsoft to keep their advanced programming interface (API)
secret, preventing software makers from utilizing the internal features of
the Windows operating system.
(3) It allows Microsoft to keep their file formats (specifically the file
formats of Office applications) secret, preventing other pieces of software
from interacting with these applications in the same way that they interact
with each other or other Microsoft software.
(4) It allows Microsoft to keep its source, the underlying code of its
software, secret. This presents a security concern because this software is
used within the government. It is hypocritical for the government to be
using software made by a company that it is prosecuting as an illegal
trust. If you look at why the government uses Microsoft software you may
find why the general public gets forced into using it. The ruling should
include a recommendation that all government computers be switched to
secure software with available source code.
(5) Financial punishment of Microsoft is insufficiently small. This company
has become one of the largest in America through illegal business
practices. They have stolen from the American public and the economy (by
stifling real innovation) and deserve to suffer.
Sincerely,
Erik Michaels-Ober
MTC-00023629
From: Fred (038) Bev Hartline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27pm
Subject: comment on Microsoft settlement
Dear DOJ:
Please include these comments in the public comments on the Microsoft
antitrust settlement.
I have been a computer user, computer professional, and educator since
before the beginning of the microcomputer revolution. During the first few
years following the birth of IBM's ``PC'', Microsoft played an
important and beneficial role in the blossoming of the computer revolution.
Unfortunately for the past decade or so, Microsoft's role has been
DETRIMENTAL to the growth and development of free trade and innovation in
the computer and software industries. Microsoft has worked actively to
cripple and suppress promising innovations and technologies that might
jeopardize it's role as the ``owner'' of the software &
operating systems markets.
This anti-competitive behavior has prevented the development of software
standards that would allow machines from different platforms to work
seamlessly together. Indeed Microsoft has worked hard to derail any such
efforts and corrupt cross platform standards in such a way that it is
extremely difficult to use non Microsoft products with Microsoft-installed
machines.
My sense is that the only possibly effective way to deal with this
monopolistic juggernaut would be to separate software-applications and
operating-system components into separately run (and owned) companies. This
remedy would give MS-Applications Co. incentive to develop products that
work well on all platforms. AND MS-Operating-Systems Co. would have an
incentive to make a stable reliable OS that works well with applications
from all other software companies.
Any agreement which bolsters the market share of Microsoft applications and
operating systems does not address the problem. Diversity and competition
are ESSENTIAL in any health market. The computer systems market is NOT
competitive, and NOT HEALTHY. There is very little diversity &
competition in office and business software, and in desktop and laptop
operating. systems. Because of this, although computational power and
digital storage capacity each has risen more than a thousand-fold in the
past 25 years, our ``office applications'' provide only a few
additional features and capabilities. The lack of competition has allowed
Microsoft to force mediocre, inefficient, insecure products on every owner
of Intel compatible computers-- I myself have had to PAY FOR Microsoft
system software to be discarded immediately so I could use the machine with
a non Microsoft OS. Microsoft has THAT MUCH power over the machine
manufacturers.
We, the Public, depend on the DOJ to defend the public interest in this and
every matter of corporate misbehavior. You have NOT provided a reasonable
resolution of Microsoft's monopolistic anticompetative behavior. PLEASE
reconsider your actions and reopen the consideration of remedies in this
case. The US public deserves a more favorable settlement.
Thank you for reconsidering.
Sincerely
Frederick F. Hartline
13213 Red Drive
Lemont IL 60439
MTC-00023630
From: Dan Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:27pm
Subject: Public Comment Period for United States vs. Microsoft
As a computer technician for the USAF prior to retirement, I have followed
the DOJ/Microsoft situation since its very inception. Now that I am retired
and building computers as a hobby, I still find myself following this
lengthy period of legal litigation. To what end will companies like Sun,
Netscape, AOL and Yahoo go in order to achieve what they consider a
``final justice''?
The process of ``using'' the government in order to stifle
competition is within itself not only an abuse of legal authority, but an
abuse of the American legal system itself. When we were children and had
the problem of having to face the bully in our neighborhood, didn't we run
home to get our ``big brother'' to stand up for us? The same
applies here with the Plaintiffs in this case. Some 20 years ago Mr. Gates
had the foresight to see and understand the critical importance of the
personal computer in the average work and home environment, and now for the
past few years nothing has been done to reward that foresight,
comprehension and understanding of how important the computer industry
would become. Not only in the business industry market, but the home market
as well.
Instead, the companies fighting Microsoft have ``in my humble
opinion'' done nothing but criticize and ridicule Microsoft and Mr.
Gates in the courts and in the media. When in fact, if it had not been for
Microsoft ``grabbing the bull by the horns'' and establishing a
``standard'' in the computer world with its'' operating
system, we would not have such things as the home computer or the internet.
None of the popular programs we use today would be able to interface with
one another in order to function. Somewhere there has to be a common bond
and Microsoft established that bond long ago with its operating system.
Intel was in there at the beginning but decided to pull out of the
manufacture of an operating system. That was a business decision that they
made at the time given the facts and circumstances of the time. Now, here
it is 20 or so years later, and I don't hear or read about Intel
complaining about Microsoft at all. When are the Plaintiffs going to learn
that they must live by the decisions that they make whether or not it is a
``good'' decision?
The reason being is because of the standard that Microsoft was able to
establish from the very beginning. Instead of the legal fight to end a
``monopoly'' controlled by Microsoft, it would be a fight in the
sense that none of the software that we use and enjoy today would be
compatible with each other. An analogy would be your automobile. If you buy
a Chevy automobile, you can replace the Delco radio originally installed at
the factory with another brand (most often made in Japan), but the
automobile itself remains Chevy. You can change the tires, but it is still
a Chevy. The same applies in this situation with Microsoft. There has to be
a root standard in the computer software industry to allow for
compatibility among other software programs. Microsoft established that
standard a long time ago. It's called ``foresight'' for those of
you that don't know or understand.
To make a long story short, I agree with the DOJ/Microsoft settlement in
its entirety. I also believe that a final end should come to this legal
wrangling by advising the aforementioned Plaintiffs that if it had not been
for Microsoft, they would not be in the business they are in now. It is my
belief that the legal actions brought by the Plaintiffs in this case
(Netscape, Yahoo, AOL, Time-Warner, etc, et-al..) only brought this
situation upon the computer world out of jealousy and greed of the market
share that Microsoft holds.
My only regret is that I did not purchase any shares of stock in Microsoft
when it first
[[Page 27351]]
went public. Here is a question for you. Do ``ANY'' of the
Plaintiffs in this case own ``ANY'' shares of Microsoft? And if
so, why? Would you purchase stock in a company that you thought had been
cheating the rest of the world?
Simply put, it is a situation of ``who thought of it first''. And
Microsoft (Bill Gates) did just that, he thought of it first. And if
Microsoft and Mr. Gates are such the criminals as depicted, then why would
Bill Gates and Microsoft forego the millions of dollars that it has in
support of Apple Computer? Apple Computer has a completely different
operating system than Microsoft, yet I don't hear Apple Computer
complaining either.
Daniel R. Andrews
1320 Ronald Ave.
Fortuna, CA. 95540-3800
MTC-00023631
From: Joshua Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to you to express my concern that you are erring in your
proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust suit. I am a computer
professional and have watched Microsoft run unrestrained over the industry,
which I feel is much the worse for it.
The most important issue (among many), I feel, is access to Microsoft's
proprietary API's. They have continually shown dishonest dealings,
discriminately providing and denying access to key components to companies
based on their economic relationship with Microsoft, and denying some parts
to non-MS developers altogether. To help create a level playing field,
Microsoft MUST be forced to openly publish the complete Windows API in a
process that subjects them to governmental review. Thank you for taking the
time to read this. I hope that we, the people, can come to a mutually
beneficial settlement with Microsoft.
Regards,
Joshua Wolf
Brooklyn, NY
MTC-00023632
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
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,
Larry Williams
103 Hickory St.
Van, TX 75790-3895
MTC-00023633
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
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,
Koleta Hunter
644 Pineview Pl
Casper, WY 82609
MTC-00023634
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
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,
Richard Burgess
2028 Oahu Dr.
Holiday, FL 34691
MTC-00023635
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30pm
Subject: Micros--t Anti Trust case Addressed to:
[email protected]
Please consider this public comment on the matter of DOJ vs Micros--t:
I frankly do not see the reason everytime I have needed to purchase a
computer, I have had to pay for a copy of Windows.
Normally when one purchases software,it can be re-used everytime a new
computer computer is purchased. For example, I have upgraded my computers 7
times, and each time I was able to re-install software. But with Windows
and their monopoly power, I have had to purchase Windows and pay for it on
every upgrade. PLEASE DO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THIS MAJOR RIP OFF. More....
Microsoft has behaved outside the law and has shown no remorse. It behaves
in a very arrogant and threatening way towards all who challenge it,
including our government. It is not a good corporate citizen, and its
policies have prevented healthy competition, which would enhance
productivity. Rather they hold a knife over many corporations, who have
mistakenly invested in its products and now these companies are being
forced to pay annually. Micros--t truly is anti American, and it seeks
the empower itself globally ... possibly as part of an empire of other
corporations that secretely intend to control countries and governments.
Micros--t is a major reason for a huge drag on productivity, as its
software is designed to break down spurring spending on IT support and
ongoing fees to Micros--t. IT IS TIME TO PUT AN END TO THIS ONGOING
CASE THAT IS ABUSING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE SWIFT AND SEVERE] THE CRIMINAL MONOPOLY MUST
RELEASE 80% OF ITS ASSETS TO BE PAID TO EVERY OWNER OF A WINDOWS C OMPUTER
OR TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. FURTHERMORE, IT MUST BE PROHIBITED FROM
ADVERTISING IN MAGAZINES (THAT BECOME BEHOLDEN TO THE CRIMINAL FOR FEAR OF
LOSING AD REVENUES) AND ALSO BE PROHIBITED FROM OWNING OR HAVING ANY
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN MEDIA CORPORATIONS THAT CONTROL THE NEWS. FURTHERMORE
IT MUST MAKE ALL OF ITS SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL COMPETING OPERATING
SYSTEMS AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO ENTER INTO ANY SECRET CONTRACTS THAT PLACE
ANY RESTRICTIONS ON MANUFACTURERS. ANY OWNER OF ANY WINDOWS OPERATING
SYSTEM MUST RECEIVE UPGRADES FOR THE PRICE OF SHIPPING AND HANDLING... AND
IF ANY PERSON PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ANY
FUTURE COMPUTER PURCHASE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY CHARGE FOR WINDOWS (THE
CUSTOMER SHOULD RECEIVE A REBATE FROM THE COMPUTER MANUFACTURER AND
MICROS--T SHOULD BE DEBITED AND NOT RECEIVE ANY ROYALTIES OR FEES FOR
THAT PARTICULAR COMPUTER]
Thank you for your time and attention.
MTC-00023636
From: Philip Cuff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:29pm
[[Page 27352]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
I've been told that eloquence in commenting on this issue is not as
important as numbers, so I finally feel qualified to respond. I do not
believe the current proposed settlement benefits the American public. Why?
I am a user of an alternative, non-Microsoft operating system. I use a non-
Microsoft browser to navigate the World Wide Web. More and more, I find
myself unable to conduct even the simplest of transactions on the Web
unless I have a Microsoft operating system and browser. Even the occasional
government website does not cooperate with my system. Microsoft made it
very clear years ago that they intended to ``de-commoditize'' the
standard protocols that comprise communications on the Web, and they are
currently proceeding in that direction entirely unchecked. Some sort of
intervention by the U.S. Government to interrupt this proprietization of
the Internet was my last hope, and I feel I have been let down by your
proposed settlement. Microsoft is a repeat offender, and what you've
proposed is less than an unsupervised probation. There is no equivalent
crime that I can think of that I might commit as an individual where I
could ever hope to get off this lightly.
Thank you for your time.
Philip K. Cuff
MTC-00023638
From: Joe Palen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
I would appreciate DOJ assessing a strategic perspective of the Microsoft
antitrust case.
In the late 1800s, the expansion of the railroads was a major industry
responsible for the country's economic development. At first, the railroads
were allowed, even encouraged, to grow into new areas and develop new
markets. Standardization on a common railroad gage provided
interoperability of equipment throughout the country, fostering economic
development. As the industry expanded and matured, eventually monopolistic
tendencies caused the railroads to act more as inhibitor then a benefactor
of the entrepreneurial sprit that is the lifeblood of our country. The
monopoly was broken into smaller entities, permitting open market
competition. This allowed first the roadway and then the airline sectors of
the transportation system to flourish, and now we have open competition
between these sectors providing the best of all worlds with regard to
transportation efficiency.
By the late 1990s, it was apparent that personal computers were ushering
the country into the information age, opening up many new markets and
opportunities. Market dominance of by one company aided the
interoperability that enhanced this market development. However, now that
market dominance has again allowed unfair and/or illegal product
development practices to strangle competitors and stifle
innovation--providing a net disbenefit to society. This happened much
quicker than with the railroads, but the implications are no less profound.
You now have the flexibility to drive your car to work or take a plane to a
meeting. You are not constrained to rail or any other singular
transportation platform. This benefits society, allowing different
platforms to optimize for different markets and different functions.
Will your children be constrained to what is allowable from one and only
one information processing platform, provided by one company with one
mindset, simply because their forefathers didn't have the insight to
restrict a monolith's monopolistic practices and allow open competition to
flourish again?
Open competition inspires the innovation that has allowed America to be the
shining light of the world's economy. Please consider the strategic
implications and precedence of this case--for you, your kids, and this
country.
MTC-00023639
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30pm
Subject: opinion
I think nothing is perfect in life but having had Microsoft around for the
last 20 years has made life simpler for everyone. If some other people are
trying to cut into their market fine. The only way they can be successful
is to take down the competition which is really not the way markets work.
Businesses are getting bigger all over. Do these people want to take down
AOL for their market dominance? No, they are part of them.
Lila Murphy
96 Rhode Island Ave
Newport, R. I. 02840
MTC-00023640
From: Spirit of Aloha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edwin F. Lesperance
47-649 Ahuimanu Road
Kaneohe, HI 96744-5435
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I think it is evident that Microsoft has done more for the personal
computer user than any other software company. Any other company could have
made positive attempts to accomplish what Microsoft has, but did not. Quite
frankly, I think it's because others lack the innovation and drive that
Microsoft has--and not that Microsoft made attempts to prevent their
efforts. I completely support Microsoft in this antitrust suit and I don't
believe they have ripped off the consumer in any way. In fact, Microsoft
has given as much back to the community as they have received.
I have been a Microsoft user for years and I find that their products are
of the highest quality at the best price. I think that the case needs to
come to an end in an effort to restore productivity in the IT industry and
create an element of stability for Microsoft, its employees and the
economy. Ending this lawsuit will give Microsoft the opportunity to
rededicate all its focus on doing what they do best---creating the
best products available to the computer user today! I appreciate this
period of public comment and trust that my comments and those of others
will help your office see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is in the best
interest of the public.
Sincerely,
Edwin Lesperance
MTC-00023641
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is more than fair and it's time to get off
Microsofts back and stop anymore litigation. Meantime maybe someone should
look into AOL/Time Warner.
Marleine Dunn.
MTC-00023642
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30pm
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,
ROBERT STEUBER
12816 LOMA RICA DRIVE
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
MTC-00023643
From: Kenneth L. McCall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33pm
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 OS/2 which included yet another Windows license. I
do not believe that the proposed settlement is an effective remedy. From
the statement of Senator Patrick Leahy: ``Our courts have developed a
test for determining the effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman Act case:
The remedy must end the anticompetitive practices, it must deprive the
wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must ensure that the
illegality does not recur.'' I see nothing in the settlements that
deprives Microsoft of their billions of dollars of illegally gotten gains.
I think that the settlement is much too weak
[[Page 27353]]
to end the anticompetitive practices. And based on Microsoft's past
behavior I see no sign that the illegality will not recur.
An example of how it may recur is in the definition of Windows Operating
System Product. One of the main points to the trial was Microsoft's attempt
to prove that Internet Explorer was a part of the operating system.
Microsoft even went so far as to fake demonstrations to prove the point.
This settlement relieves them of that inconvenience in the future:
Paragraph VI. U. ``......The software code that comprises a Windows
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole
discretion.'' This sounds disturbingly like: ``When I use a
word,'' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ``it means
just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less. '' Lewis
Carrol Through the Looking Glass.
One feature lacking in the proposed settlement that would help restore
competition to the software industry is the release to the public, not just
Microsoft approved ISVs, of complete definitions of file formats and
communications protocols.
Kenneth L. McCall
110 Woodland Rd.
Pittsford, NY 14534-1138
MTC-00023644
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30pm
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,
ROBERT STEUBER
12816 LOMA RICA DRIVE
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
MTC-00023645
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:30pm
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,
Sandra Shea
11754 Mountainwood Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32258
MTC-00023645--0001
4382 Cornell Way
Livermore, CA 94550
January 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed final judgement to
resolve the United States'' civil antitrust case against Microsoft. I
work as a computer programmer at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, and have observed the development of personal computing over
the last 25-30 years. I am 52 years old. With my wife, I own 177
shares of Microsoft corporation. I have followed this trial in the trade
press with interest since its inception, and have read the Complaint,
Stipulation ..., and Competitive Impact Statement.
The general bias I bring to my letter is that the proposed settlement is
nowhere near an adequate remedy for the wrongs visited upon consumers and
the computing industry by the defendant. Others such as James Barksdale
(Netscape) and Matthew Szulik (Redhat) have spoken before Congress
recently, with eloquence and at greater length. I agree with their points,
so will restrict my comments to two areas:
1. Any settlement must include some simple and inescapable punishment
designed to redress a sensible fraction of the actual damages, and to deter
this and any future defendants. I believe such punishment should meet three
criteria:
a. It is not predicated upon nor subject to negotiation by the defendant;
b. It has simple terms, with no loopholes that may
boomerang--``free'' software, services, in- kind payments,
or reduced license fees do not qualify;
c. It is proportional to the damage and substantial enough to cause serious
reflection on the part of this company's leadership.
I favor a cash fine, as a lump sum up front and an annual fraction of gross
revenue for a period of some years. This is the form of punishment most
likely to engage the stockholders of the company in its reform. Microsoft
has been reported to have approximately $35 billion dollars in cash
reserves at this time. Any lump sum fine for which the defendant could
simply write a check seems inadequate to me.
2. One prominently reported alterative proposed by the nine state attorneys
general who declined to support the Proposed Settlement was a requirement
that the defendant should port the Office suite to Linux. This is surely
well-intended. However, I offer the following contrary viewpoint:
a. Such a requirement is unlikely to succeed. Speaking as a software
developer and manager myself, there are many ways to meet formal
requirements of this project and still torpedo its effect.
b. If it did succeed, it would only increase the dominance of the product.
This is an anti-trust action, after all.
MTC-00023745--0002
c. It would in either case disrupt the current open source marketplace, and
surely destroy the several small but promising alternatives such as
StarOffice, Abiword, and others.
The defendant's relationship to open source may be something like B'rer
Rabbit's to the briarpatch. I believe it might be better to enjoin
Microsoft from entering that market than to require it. A simpler solution
is to require the defendant to publish the file formats of the Office
suite, past and present, in enough detail to allow robust inter-operable
alternatives to be developed by third parties. If this might compromise
intellectual property rights of the defendant, those must be balanced
against the collective rights of all persons who have authored documents
currently stored in the proprietary Office format. This case offers the
opportunity to set a precedent regarding our expectation that any
proprietary file format-- the railroad gauges of our
century--will become to some degree open after it reaches a certain
prevalence of use in society. In my opinion, the public interest ultimately
will require this outcome.
Yours very truly,
Lee E. Busby
[email protected]
MTC-00023646
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:31pm
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,
[[Page 27354]]
Juan Alfaro
2200 Columbia Pike #1204
Arlington, VA 22204-4421
MTC-00023647
From: DIANNE STEELE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the government should leave Microsoft alone. Bill Gates has created
a very successful business and products which have benefited the consumer.
Don't penalize ambition, hard work, and success.
MTC-00023648
From: Elaine Gelfand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please register my support of Microsoft's position.
Thank you,
Elaine Gelfand
23870 Kellar Rd
Rainier OR 97048
MTC-00023649
From: Kristine Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea and does not adequately
address or correct the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been
convicted. Please do not sign or accept this settlement.
Thank you,
Kristine Sawyer
MTC-00023650
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34pm
Subject: Ref: Microsoft
Dear Sirs:
If it were not for microsoft, we would not have made a comfortable living
for the past 10 years. The fact that the Windows operating system became
the universal standard for which all software could and would be written,
made personal computers valuable. Because personal computers had standards
and a wide selection of software written for their exclusive use, they were
priced at a reasonable cost. When a consumer is faced with too many
decisions to make regarding a purchase, many will defer the decision.
Microsoft made personal computers an easy-to-purchase product. If there had
been several operating systems as well as the wide variety of CPUs,
consumer's might have been so bewildered that their purchases would have
been postponed as they did in other electronic products. We have been in
electronics since 1955 and have seen this happen to other products, the
most memorable being video tape recorders, four channel stereo and
citizen's band two-way radios. The major complaint we have with Microsoft
is the back-door agreements they make with software companies to force
consumers to use Internet Explorer or other Microsoft products. I am
personally offended when Microsoft forces me to install Internet Explorer
in order to use some other product. I hope your settlement corrects this
injury to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Loris von Brethorst
Tri-Von Enterprises
107 S. Celina Street
Roanoke, IL 61561
309-923-3531
MTC-00023651
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a US Citizen, computer user, and software developer, I am opposed to the
proposed settlement. Microsoft was found guilty of anticompetive, predative
practices, yet it has continued to operate as before. The proposed
settlement does not penalize Microsoft for its past behaviour nor does it
provide a framework to prevent Microsoft from further abusing its position
as a monopoly.
Michael Shiplett
1693 Reserve Ct
Ann Arbor MI 48103
MTC-00023652
From: Mark Stock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is too soft on Microsoft, and a bad
idea. I stand as a co-signer to Dan Kegel's comments, available at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Thank you for all of your effort in this matter.
Mark Stock
PhD Student, University of Michigan
[email protected]
MTC-00023653
From: Jim Hofmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:37pm
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,
James Hofmann
Naperville, IL
MTC-00023654
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34pm
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,
Ronja Butler
8124 Rocklyn Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322
MTC-00023656
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:35pm
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,
Keith Snyder
205 W. South Ave.
Houghton, MI 49931
MTC-00023657
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27355]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:35pm
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,
Geri Modesty
120 Elmwood Ln/
Clarkson, KY 42726
MTC-00023658
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US DOJ,
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft will continue to
bend every statute to it's interest and seek ways to utilize it's monopoly
to the disadvantage of any competing product.
Please break them up.
Jim Capp
Harrisburg, PA
CEO, Anteil, Inc.
www.anteil.com
MTC-00023659
From: Norman Aragones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello.
I am opposed to tentative settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft
antitrust lawsuit. In the end, Microsoft keeps its monopoly, and destroys
any innovation and advances which may have helped the computer industry.
Norman Aragones, from Phoenix, Arizona.
MTC-00023660
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:36pm
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 Kenfield
36740 View Ridge Drive
Elizabeth, CO 80107-8555
MTC-00023661
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity for voicing my concerns regarding
this settlement. This is a bad idea. Microsoft is a rouge company and has
abused it's power countless time in the past. Is has absolutely no respect
for the law unless it is for it's own gain. It is a ruthless company that
will do anything to get it's way. We need to punish the guilty, not reward
them. Proud to be a citizen of this great country! Thanks.
Faisal Islam
2116 Rose Hill Road
Carrollton TX 75007
MTC-00023662
From: Tony Stirk-Iron Horse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Once again, to those of us in the industry, we see the USDOJ
``losing'' what we view as a slam dunk case against a flagrant
violator of the law. Microsoft beat you once before even when they had a
motto that ``DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run.'' Their
bundling agreements and licensing agreements are clearly anticompetetive.
Their current actions show that they don't fear repeating their actions.
While antitrust law may not allow for penalties that the industry would see
as reasonable, perhaps RICO or some other law would. And, with the power of
UCITA and the DMCA, the software industry's sway with lawmakers, and these
wins in court, we in the industry expect stronger software companies to use
their marketing and legal powers to the detriment of customers,
consultants, and analysts. The decision to bargain with Microsoft after
even a pitiful win has many of us questioning why the government would
pursue Microsoft for so little gain. We have lost confidence in the USDOJ
to protect us from the people who run the Microsoft's of the world.
Tony Stirk, President, CCNA, CCDA, Vinca Certified Engineer, Citrix
Certified Administrator
Iron Horse
8328A Traford Lane
Springfield, VA 22152-1638
(800) 991-IRON (4766) Sales
(703) 866-6413 fax: (703) 866-6418
Internet mail: [email protected]
World Wide Web: www.ih-online.com
MTC-00023663
From: Aapo Puskala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i disagree with the microsoft settlement
MTC-00023664
From: John H McCord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) as it is currently
written. The PFJ is too narrowly constructed and targets last year's items.
It is all too easy for Microsoft to side step the restrictions by
introducing new products (or just renaming old ones). Rather than In my
opinion, Microsoft has committed significant antitrust violations as
supported by the findings of fact. For the PFJ to have any meaning it must
make such future activities impossible. Microsoft should be prohibited from
taking any actions against OEMs period. They should be enjoined from all
special licensing arrangements and should be required to sell to any
purchaser on equal terms.
OEMs should be permitted to substitute any portion of the operating system
and change the presentation format (i.e. change icons, replace icons with
competing products) without restriction. No components of the Windows
operating system now or in the future should be excluded. New developments,
such as .NET, should be treated the same as existing features and
components, such as java, Windows Media Player, etc.
Anyone should be able to substitute these without fear of retributions from
Microsoft.
These restrictions should apply to all present and future Microsoft
Operating systems on any platform and hardware--not just the limited
list in the current PFJ.
There should be a technical monitoring board to ensure compliance without
forcing an injured party to seek retribution through the legal system.
Microsoft should be liable to penalties even if no one steps forward to
complain.
MTC-00023665
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft comment
Hello, I wish to add my voice to those asking for a serious remedy for
Microsoft's monopoly.
There is nothing to be gained by having the entire digital world owned and
run by one company. As long as computers and similar types of applications
can readily understand each other, they do not need to be made by one
company. I work with the graphics program Freehand, by the Macromedia
company. I create files on my Macintosh at home and have no trouble opening
and working with them further on a Gateway PC at my office. MIcrosoft is
already an operating system and office suite monopoly. If they take control
of the internet, and education market, we will be in even more danger from
rampant virus attacks, as well as the financial danger of simply having no
choice but to pay whatever they ask.
[[Page 27356]]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Jeffery C. Mathison
Spring MIlls, PA
MTC-00023666
From: Roscoe Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First, I believe that DOJ was wrong in prosecuting Microsoft. In essence,
doing the work that it's competitors couldn't accomplish. But I believe
that the settlement is in the best interest of the public and Microsoft and
should be followed without interference from AOL, other competitors and/or
state governments.
MTC-00023667
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:43pm
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,
Sandra Boni 1110 Main Street Burgettstown, PA 15021
MTC-00023668
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This letter is to express my extreme disapproval of the proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the US. I can only hope that the Department of
Justice can follow through with its initial findings and implement an
effective, permanent judgement, rather than this obvious facade.
MTC-00023669
From: Richard Einhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The microsoft settlement is a bad idea. If I have more time I will write
again with details as to why I think so.
MTC-00023670
From: Janice Ochoa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
Isn't it about time to stop this raping of Microsoft by those other large
corporations who seek only to get money for their lawyers and their boards
of directors from Microsoft Corp.? . If people are so ignorant they don't
know how to avoid using the Microsoft net browser, then they have no
business trying to operate a computer...surely the directors of Netscape,
Oracle and the other perpetrators of this idiocy are smarter than that!
This has gone on far too long. The idea that somehow there is an illegal
``monopoly'' is patently ludicrous. These companies just found a
good way to harass their major competitor without having to spend a dime of
their own money...just hang it on the taxpayers of America instead,
right???
It's time to get off Microsoft's back (and an apology wouldn't hurt!)
Janice & Frank Ochoa
Duvall, WA
MTC-00023671
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:46pm
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,
Louise Wilson
898 Ardath Dr
Cambria, CA 93428
MTC-00023672
From: Guy Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00023672--0001
20740 Northeast 30th Place
Aventura, FL 33180
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I hope that this settlement, reached between the Justice Department and
Microsoft in November, will mean that an end to this settlement after three
long years. We all need to see an end to this case and let both Microsoft
and the Government move on to more important matters.
This case needs to be settled and Microsoft knows it. That's why they have
said they are willing to offer so many terms in order to reach an
acceptable settlement. I mean, giving your trade secrets to your
competition while at the same time configuring your product to work better
with theirs is something that wouldn't be expected of any other company.
Microsoft has gone above and beyond what was expected of them and that
should be respected.
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 ask that you all finalize this settlement as soon as possible so that
Microsoft can get back to the business of innovating new products and
keeping this country in the forefront of the IT industry.
IF MERGEFIELD PARA4 Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister, and
knew her bloody well.[]
IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No,
there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.[]
Sincerely,
Guy Stewart
00023672----0002
MTC-00023673
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:47pm
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,
Jackie Potter
118 Riverview Dr.
Leland, NC 28451
MTC-00023675
From: Jon Briccetti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JB Stationery I think the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00023676
From: Dave DiGiovanni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:52pm
Subject: Comments AGAINST Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27357]]
MTC-00023676--0001
Dear sirs,
I am the Information Systems Manager of a medium sized business. I feel
that the Microsoft settlement does not do enough to stop Monopolistic
practices. I also feel Microsoft has new practices that should be
scrutinized and stopped. Not enough is being done to Change Microsoft's
behavior in the business world.
Make them Split OS and Applications.
Make them Publish and distribute API Calls to it's application group on a
fair basis with other companies and individuals.
Make them accountable for Security holes.
Make it possible for OEMs to bundle other software like Netscape or AOL.
Make it possible for me to buy a PC with LINUX without the OEM paying
Microsoft for a Non-existent license
I believe:
Microsoft kills innovation in the industry as many companies are afraid to
take risks knowing the Microsoft will either copy or steal good ideas and
kill what could be profitable markets segments.
Microsoft continues to thumb it's nose at existing standards in order to
promote their proprietary standards. This has hurt progress in many areas
of the Industry. It has also decreased Internet security in general.
1. As a IS manager I feel that not enough is being done to stop Microsoft's
abuse of their monopoly nor stop future abusive practices.
Nothing stops Microsoft from picking any market segment in the software
industry and taking it over.
They first roll it into the operating system or Office Package for
Free--driving competitors out of Business.
Later they increase the price of the OS or Office Package. These costs have
increased out of proportion in the last few years.
2. As a one time Software Developer I know that I can never compete against
Microsoft when the following happens:
They control the API Calls that all software requires in order to function.
They do not use the same API calls that they publish for developers to use.
They use secret faster ones.
If you use these Secret API calls and are singled out by them they well be
changed and your Software will not work with the next iteration of their
operating system. Theirs will!
If they like your company you will be given advance notice of these changes
and your software might work.
If you are competing with them you will not be given advance notice of API
call changes until the release of the new OS, long after everyone else has
finished development.
3. When Users are reluctant to upgrade because of the costs involved.
Microsoft Links the software license to the hardware. This makes the
software get obsolescent as fast as the hardware 2 year VS 5 year cycle.
You are not now allowed to transfer licences between machines if you bought
from a major Hardware OEM.
Switching to software leases. You can no longer own the software. Now
Microsoft wants corporations to pay yearly for software with only a promise
of free upgrades but no guarantee they will supply them or that they should
be needed?
MTC-00023676--0002
of 2
01/29/2002 2:59
file:///c/win/temp/tmp.
Dave DiGiovanni
Manager Information Services
EIMAC, Div of CPI
San Carlos, CA. 94070
Phone: 650-594-4037
MTC-00023676--0003
01/29/2002 2:59
MTC-00023677
From: Alan Amesbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many aspects of this proposed settlement that bother me. The
judgment is putatively in answer to Microsoft (MS) being declared an
illegal monopoly. It's my understanding that one of the remedies when
dealing with a monopoly is to remedy the problem of others being able to
enter the market controlled by the monopoly, yet this proposed settlement
doesn't seem to address that. I'm sure this has already been pointed out to
you repeatedly, so I'll get to my point.
As a practitioner of computer security for one of the country's largest
banks, the mention of security-related items tends to pique my interest the
most. In particular, this part of the proposed settlement stood out to me:
No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)
portions of APIs... 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... related to anti-
piracy systems... 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..... As I see it, this section attempts to protect certain
security-related functions which, in theory, is a laudable goal. However,
it also seems to be a serious loophole. System security is not something
that can be trivially separated from the whole, and to attempt to separate
it clouds the issue. Consider: if MS develops a communication protocol that
is used for authentication (a security function) and file sharing (an
information-sharing function), does this settlement give MS the option of
not sharing that information?
Consider the Samba project. Samba is a freely available software package
that implements MS Windows file sharing on a variety of platforms. It's
fast and portable, and reportedly does Windows file sharing better than
Windows in some circumstances. Most of Samba's development is done, not by
a corporation, but as a hobby by people in their spare time. Because MS
didn't disclose its file sharing protocol, Samba was largely developed
through reverse-engineering MS protocols. Because file sharing usually
requires some sort of access controls (many times you want to limit who has
access to which files), you have to have some sort of user authentication
and validation capability built into the software that provides file
sharing services. Authentication is clearly a security function. If MS is
able to restrict disclosure of security-related protocols, doesn't this
hamper the development of competing products that have to rely on MS
security protocols in order to interact with MS products?
As for item 2, who decides whether someone has a ``reasonable business
need'' for a security-related API or protocol? Again, the people who
developed Samba are a loose-knit group of volunteers. Would volunteers have
a ``reasonable business need'' to obtain access to these
protocols under the settlement? It's highly unlikely that MS would
determine that they have need, and such volunteers would almost certainly
lack the legal resources needed to force MS to turn that information over.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to *NOT* attempt to separate security
factors in the settlement. Security is an integral part of any well-
designed API or protocol, and exempting security-related APIs and protocols
will very likely provide MS with a loophole that will allow them to
perpetuate their monopoly. Thank you very much for your attention to this
matter. --
Alan Amesbury
[email protected]
MTC-00023678
From: Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs
I urge our govt to end the Microsoft witch hunt, that was begun by the most
corrupt Justice dept in history (of this country anyway). This is unjust
and will discourage innovation and enterprise. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out
``Bill Clinton spent more $ going after Bill Gates than he did going
after Osama Bin Laden''. Now is a good time to stop.
In one century we went from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to
offering remedial English in college
Owen [email protected]
[[Page 27358]]
MTC-00023679
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54pm
Subject: Re: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement
Let's have an end to this legal and government wrangling in the courts, and
let Microsoft and its competitors compete in the business environment
instead of draining national and private resources, in what will, in the
end, amount to nothing more than an effective toss of the coin decision.
Business is the business of America! Government agencies, cool it!!!!!!
Wilfred Webb.
San Mateo, California.
MTC-00023680
From: Beundrare?--
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. /Matti Palmstr?m
MTC-00023681
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:51pm
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,
Ken Harris
2831 Springflower Dr
Wilson, NC 27896-6923
MTC-00023682
From: Andrew MacGinitie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department official:
I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed settlement between
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. It fails to provide sufficient
punishment for Microsoft's egregious illegal practices, and it will not be
effective in curtailing Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly power in the
future. As a software engineer who has made a career of developing
applications for personal computers for the past 15 years, I believe the
opinion I express here is a well-informed one.
Respectfully,
Andrew MacGinitie
98 Mallory Rd.
Roxbury CT 06783
MTC-00023683
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53pm
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,
Elson Elson
637 Macy Ave
Lake Helen, FL 32744-3417
MTC-00023684
From: Dan Girellini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
In accordance with the Tunney Act, I would like to present my comments on
the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States'' civil antitrust
case against Microsoft.
I must strongly assert that I do not feel the the proposed settlement is
restrictive enough in its actions against Microsoft. It leaves many areas
and issues unaddressed while containing several loopholes for Microsoft to
circumvent the restrictions it does impose.
To begin with, the definitions the settlement bases its terms on are
defined more narrowly than they are used in common language and practice
and therefore allow to avoid the restrictions they impose. The settlement
still allows much anticompetive behavior on Microsoft's part against OEMs
that ship competing Operating Systems. The definition of Windows does not,
in fact, include all of the relevant versions of Windows that Microsoft
produces now or may produce in the future.
It doesn't prohibit the restrictive licensing terms that Microsoft issues
to prevent use of Open Source software and operating systems. These are
just a few of the many problems I see with the proposed settlement. In
general I don't feel the settlement will present any significant
discouragement of Microsoft's fiercely anticompetitive practices. It should
be revised and rewritten to address the concerns I cite above before its
acceptance is considered.
Sincerely,
Dan Girellini
Software Engineer
28 Juliet St.
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
MTC-00023685
From: Thomas Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Break them up. Only honest, and just thing to do.
MTC-00023686
From: John and Heidi Van Patten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is wrong.
MTC-00023687
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55pm
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,
Ronald Shimono
601 12th Ave. NW
#F3
Issaquah, WA 98027-2669
MTC-00023688
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:54pm
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.
[[Page 27359]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Pennebaker
HC 78 Box A22
Troy, WV 26443-9710
MTC-00023689
From: Joshua Keith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To who it may concern,
The proposed settlement agrements are a very bad idea. These will allow
Microsoft to continue it's current practices and further use it's strong
arm techniques.
Thank you,
Joshua Keith
MTC-00023690
From: Aryeh Selekman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my feelings that the proposed Microsoft settlement
is a terrible idea. Microsoft has been found guilty, and this settlement
does little to punish Microsoft or prevent further violations.
-Aryeh Selekman
[email protected]
MTC-00023691
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55pm
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,
Paul Roper
1127 Haltown Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78213-2022
MTC-00023692
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:55pm
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,
Al Vickers
424 Northern Trail
Leander, TX 78641
MTC-00023693
From: dale wick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion concerning the antitrust suit against
Microsoft. I support the settlement and all litigation needs to end. This
lawsuit has taken three years and has cost me and the rest of us (tax
payers) billions of dollars. I believe that Microsoft has agreed to terms
that are fair and reasonable; let's get this thing behind us and Microsoft.
It is my view that the law suit against Microsoft was not in the best
interest of the public and was groundless anyway. Its time to get the
federal government out of the Microsoft bashing business and to agree to
the terms that Microsoft has already agreed to.
Dale L. Wick
17913 117th St. SE
Snohomish, WA 98290-6306
MTC-00023694
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:56pm
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,
Len Defendorf
8050 E. 8th St.
Tucson, AZ 85710-2420
MTC-00023695
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:56pm
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,
Joseph Discipio
109
30th Street
La Grange Park, IL 60526-1015
MTC-00023696
From: Joseph J Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
The proposed settlement is a bad idea! We believe Microsoft should be
broken up as originally proposed by Judge Jackson, and should be made to
compensate Netscape and other companies that have been harmed by its
illegal and anticompetitive actions.
Joe Hansen, President, Lexington Strategic Associates
Joseph J. Hansen
Lexington Strategic Associates
221 Follen Road
Lexington, MA 02421-5802, U.S.A.
http://www.LexSA.com
tel (781) 863 5003
fax (781) 862 8845
[email protected]
MTC-00023697
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:58pm
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
[[Page 27360]]
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,
Walter Talley
920 43 Ave NE
St.Petersburg, FL 33703
MTC-00023698
From: FRANKEROUSE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
GENTLEMEN;
I AM WRITING TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO FINALIZE THE SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT.
AS THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO FALTER, THE LAST THING WE NEED IS FURTHER
LITIGATION WITH MICROSOFT AS SOME OF THE STATES AND AOL WOULD GREEDILY LIKE
TO SEE.
I HAVE USED MICROSOFT PRODUCTS FOR YEARS AND DO NOT FEEL THE LEAST BIT
DAMAGED. IN FACT, I FEEL DAMAGED BY THE RESULTS OF THE LITIGATION PRESSED
BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ON BEHALF OF THE MICROSOFT COMPETTITORS. I
WAS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER FOR 25 YEARS AND NO ONE EVER PROTECTED ME FROM
COMPETITION. ACCORDINGLY, I FEEL THE MICROSOFT LITIGATION WAS INITIATED BY
POOR COMPETTITORS WHO GOT THEIR LEGISLATORS TO FIGHT THEIR BATTLES FOR
THEM. THAT IS NOT FAIR TO MICROSOFT OR THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE SETTLE THE MATTER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY OR LITIGATION.
FRANK ROUSE
YAKIMA, WA
MTC-00023699
From: Matt Taggart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the currently proposed settlement in United States v.
Microsoft. While this proposal begins to address some of Microsoft's
illegal practices it does not ``terminate the illegal monopoly''
and amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. If this settlement
becomes final I have no doubt that Microsoft will continue their current
illegal practices because it will still be ``worth it'' if this
is the type of punishment they will receive.
Please reconsider this settlement.
Thank you,
Matt Taggart
[email protected]
MTC-00023700
From: Steve Sherry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:00pm
Subject: Accountability would be good
Being a network administrator, I have to deal with various software vendors
and systems. The one thing that always stands out about Microsoft is that I
hear from the company for two reasons; the first is the various security
updates that always need to be applied to our system due to the result of
sloppy coding. When Windows 98 was released, it was released with a huge
number of known bugs in the code, if a manufacturing company released a
substandard and potentially damaging system they would be taken to court to
be held accountable for the damages that their indifference caused. Why
should a software manufacturer be any different?
The second time that I hear from Microsoft, and this is quite regular, are
phone calls concerning Marketing information or Licensing information.
Never have I received a phone call asking me on what improvements that I
would like to see implemented, and I would like to think that my experience
as a Network Admin could be a useful tool to a company that is trying to
improve their product. Being Cisco Certified, I deal with Cisco quite a bit
also, and they are constantly asking for input. The major difference that
myself and my fellow technicians discuss is that we wished Microsoft
products worked as well as Cisco products, but the difference between the
two seems to be that Cisco does one thing, but does it well, while
Microsoft tries to do everything and as a result does nothing well. The
best example that I can think of to demonstrate this point is that if you
try to use anyones software, they usually ask you to agree with a licensing
agreement. If you go to the Windows update, they ask you many times to
agree to their terms. I think that Microsoft would be better off if they
put as much effort into troubleshooting, testing, and releasing code that
worked as they do into making sure that people are paying for it.
One last note, Microsoft's latest OS, Windows XP, is supposed to be the
pinnacle of it's Windows NT and Windows 9X OS's, yet the only real
improvements that have been made is some more customization of the desktop
and a faster boot time. The security is awful, and all the benchmarking
tests that have been performed indicate that there is almost no improvement
in system performance over Windows 2000. To me, it seems as if the only aim
of the Windows XP OS is to allow Microsoft the ability to cut down on
pirating, but this has been done at the expense of the usability of the
system since the security breaches are so bad and the fixes cause the
systems to become unstable. hardly a day goes by when I do not read another
story about how XP seems to cause more problems and downtime (expenses)
while Microsoft continually claims that piracy costs the economy billions
of dollars a year. How much money has the XP OS cost the American economy
already because of bad coding by a company that only wishes to control the
market.
Stephen Sherry
MTC-00023701
From: Brian Poole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd just like to chime in with my opinion on the proposed settlement on the
Microsoft Antitrust case.
My opinion is that the case is being resolved with far too light of
penalties, probably in no small part due to Microsoft being able to drag
the case along as it pleases and leaving the government with what may seem
like the best, and certainly easiest thing to do; settling with an
agreement that doesn't truly prevent Microsoft from continuing in its
actions.
The loopholes and exceptions are numerous in the proposed settlement as
many, many papers have been written on and I can only hope that the
government considers this and decides to draft another revision on the
settlement before simply accepting what Microsoft offers.
Thank you,
Brian Poole
Systems Administrator
CERIAS, Purdue University
MTC-00023702
From: J.C. Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been
converted to attachment.]
MTC-00023702_0001
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 Judge Kollar-Kotelly and whom it may concern,
My name is J. C. Allen. I reside in Hampton, Virginia. I am a citizen by
birth of the United States.
It should not be necessary to relate this information via email. However,
Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft'') has, in the past, falsified
support for its position as market leader and its monopolistic, predatory
practices. It is imperative that the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ)
carefully scrutinize the responses it receives regarding the antitrust
complaint filed against Microsoft and the proposed Final Judgment, because
of these past actions on the part of Microsoft. Some of the email the USDOJ
receives may in fact have been manufactured by Microsoft to intentionally
deceive the USDOJ. Microsoft has resorted to such impromptu
``lobbying'' in the past in order to create the perception that
the public supports Microsoft's actions in the nation's marketplace. I have
no desire to read, in a few months, about a similar deception with regard
to the proposed Final Judgment (``Proposed Final Judgment''). It
is my opinion that Microsoft will use every tactic possible to convince the
USDOJ that the public believes the Proposed Final Judgment is fair. I am
the public, and I do not believe it is fair. I can assure you that I am not
alone.
[[Page 27361]]
The following URL details the efforts of Microsoft to influence Utah
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff using these tactics: http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134332634--microlob23.html
A portion of the above article (which was originally published by the Los
Angeles Times) is quoted below: ``Letters purportedly written by at
least two dead people landed on the desk of Utah Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff earlier this year, imploring him to go easy on Microsoft for its
conduct as a monopoly. The pleas, along with more than 100 others from Utah
residents, are part of a carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign by the
software giant... Microsoft sought to create the impression of a surging
grass-roots movement, aimed largely at the attorneys general of some of the
18 states that have joined the Justice Department in suing Microsoft. The
Microsoft campaign goes to great lengths to create an impression that the
letters are spontaneous expressions from ordinary people. Letters sent in
the last month are on personalized stationery using different wording,
color and typefaces, details that distinguish Microsoft's efforts from
lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day.'' I would like to
begin with a quote by former Judge, Stanley Sporkin:
``Simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more does little
or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has already gained...''
I would also like to list some of those companies that have unfairly
suffered because of Microsoft's illegal monopoly and predatory marketing
practices. Following the company name and separated by a colon is the name
of the product that Microsoft intentionally sabotaged, copied, or stolen
outright. Following the product name and separated from the competing
company's name by a semicolon is the name of the product Microsoft
developed to integrate the functions of these competing applications into
Microsoft operating systems. Note that many of these competing applications
are no longer being actively developed because these companies, which
depended on revenues from sales, are no longer in business. A few others
continue to market new releases, but their user base has dramatically
declined:
1. Digital Research, Inc. (then Novell, now Caldera): DR DOS; MS-DOS 5.0
and Windows 3.1, which were intentionally designed by Microsoft to alter
the base upon which applications were written for Microsoft operating
systems, so that applications written for Microsoft operating systems would
be incompatible with DR DOS. The announcement that Windows 3.1 would not be
compatible with DR DOS resulted in sales of that product dwindling to
practically nothing in months.
2. Real Networks: Real Player; Microsoft Windows Media Player, which has
almost completely supplanted Real Player as the de facto internet standard
streaming media application. Windows Media Player is bundled with Microsoft
operating systems, and is available as a free download for Microsoft
operating system users.
3. Netscape Corp. (now America Online/Time Warner): Netscape Navigator;
Internet Explorer, which has effectively supplanted Netscape Navigator as
the browser of choice among most internet users. In 1995 the vast majority
of internet users used Netscape Navigator to access the internet. Internet
Explorer is bundled with Microsoft operating systems.
MTC-00023702--0003
4. Apple Computers: Apple's Graphical User Interface (``GUI'');
although Apple borrowed heavily from XWindows for UNIX, Microsoft's first
attempt to produce a true GUI operating system featured an almost exact
replica of Apple's desktop, right down to the trash can, which Microsoft
renamed ``Recycle Bin''. Apple's GUI became the basis for the
present look and feel of Microsoft operating systems.
5. Corel: WordPerfect; Microsoft Office (Microsoft Word). Also: Quattro
Pro; Microsoft Office (Microsoft Excel). Both Microsoft Office and
Microsoft Word, separately, are frequently bundled with new installations
of Microsoft operating systems.
6. Quarterdeck Corp. (now owned by Symantec): QEMM; EMM386.*, a memory
manager that enabled DOS-based programs to access more than 640K of memory.
EMM386.* (et al.) are necessary components of Microsoft operating systems
that run in real and protected mode.
7. STAC Electronics: hard drive compression scheme; Microsoft DoubleSpace.
DoubleSpace is a disk utility that is included with Microsoft operating
systems.
8. Go Corp.: pen-based computing; Microsoft incorporated the code into its
operating systems so that they would be able to recognize the device.
9. IBM: Lotus 1-2-3; Microsoft Office (Microsoft Excel). Also:
OS/2; Windows 95. Microsoft refused to provide technical details necessary
for third-party developers to develop applications for both Windows 95 and
OS/2 to IBM, resulting in a net migration of users away from that operating
system as the number of available applications fell. Microsoft Office is
frequently bundled with new installations of Microsoft operating systems.
10. Sun Corp.: Java, Sun Java Virtual Machine (``JVM'');
Microsoft J++, J#, C#, ``.NET''. Microsoft's non-standard
implementation of Java (J++, J#) forced Sun to sue to prevent Microsoft
from designing proprietary extensions to the language that were only
functional on Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft lost and in
retribution announced it would no longer support Sun's JVM in order to
force a migration away from the use of Java and to force implementation of
Microsoft's ``.NET'' initiative.
In addition, Microsoft has incorporated new features into its newest
operating system to further extend its monopoly and sabotage applications
in markets which it intends to dominate, for example: Roxio EasyCD Creator
(Microsoft bundled the software required to ``bum'' CDs into its
newest operating system, Windows XP); Adobe Photoshop, et al. (Microsoft
PictureIt! is marketed to directly compete with these applications, using a
proprietary file format which non-Microsoft middleware cannot support
because PictureIt!, by default, stores images in the proprietary file
format, and Microsoft has not released details of the file format to third-
party developers); Norton Personal Firewall, et al. (Microsoft bundled a
limited firewall into Windows XP).
In short, Microsoft has demonstrated time and time again that it is not an
innovator, but that it is a ruthless integrator--buying, copying or
stealing other companies'' innovations and intellectual property
outright, and bundling applications which utilize these innovations with
its operating system in order to drive its competitors out of business.
Fear of the pending Final Judgment has not caused Microsoft to cease this
abusive practice. In fact, the newest components of Microsoft Windows XP
(e.g., CD burning software) were developed well after the anti-trust action
against Microsoft was initiated.
It is my contention that the Proposed Final Judgment will not
``provide a prompt, certain and effective remedy for consumers by
imposing injunctive relief to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of
the violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the
Court of Appeals and restore competitive conditions to the market.'' I
believe that the Proposed Final Judgment does ``little or nothing to
address the unfair advantage [Microsoft] has already gained''.
I have no special skills or training which qualify me to comment in detail
on the Proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft. I am neither a lawyer,
nor an employee of any of the companies which directly compete with, or
depend on, Microsoft software. However, I use Microsoft software daily in
my work and at home, and it is my belief that the opinions of those who
actually use Microsoft products in their daily lives should weigh heavily
in any deliberation. We are, after all, the ones who stand to gain or lose
the most by any Final Judgment, and we stand to lose a great deal if the
Proposed Final Judgment is adopted. My objections to the settlement offered
by the United States Federal Government are as follows:
1. A. The internet was developed using open, non-proprietary standards.
B. Microsoft has extended, and is extending, its monopoly by developing
proprietary standards which unfairly exclude rivals from developing
applications which are fully functional on computers running Microsoft
operating systems. C. Microsoft will profit from this exclusion. D.
Microsoft should not be allowed to profit in the future from unfairly
excluding competitors in the past.
Repeatedly, the court has stated that Microsoft integrated its Web browser
into Windows in a non-removable way. However, at the time this claim was
made, very early in the anti-trust action against Microsoft, it was a
deception. It is possible to remove Internet Explorer (``IE'')
from Windows 98. This has been demonstrably proven: http://www.cnn.com/
TECH/computing/9903/O9/removeie.idg/
In fact, an application was developed to remove IE from Windows 98 called
``98lite'': http://www.981ite.net/
I am not ignorant of the fact that this would eliminate some of the
features offered by the
[[Page 27362]]
integration of Windows 98 and Internet Explorer. However, it would
eliminate many of the vulnerabilities which have plagued Microsoft software
from the time Microsoft incorporated IE as a component of the Windows
operating system and offer enhanced security to the user. Yet requiring
Microsoft to enable the end user of Windows to completely remove IE, and
therefore eliminate direct access to the operating system (which IE, as a
component of the operating system, was designed to allow), is not a
condition of the Proposed Final Settlement.
At the time the integration of IE into Windows 98 was first undertaken by
Microsoft, the anti-trust action against Microsoft had not yet begun.
However, shortly thereafter Microsoft desperately needed a legal defense
against the argument that it illegally bundled its Web browser with its
operating system to crush rival Netscape. The bundling of IE with Windows
98 allowed Microsoft to establish market dominance and become the de facto
standard Web browser. By demonstrating that Windows 98, with IE removed,
was incapable of functioning as designed, Microsoft ``proved''
that IE was a ``necessary'' component of Windows 98. However,
this claim is clearly ludicrous, and has not been completely remedied by
the Proposed Final Settlement.
My principle objection is that the USDOJ appears, by way of the language of
the Proposed Final Settlement and Competitive Impact Statement, to have
accepted Microsoft's claim that IE ``cannot'' be removed from
Windows. I simply refuse to believe that the company that integrated its
Web browser with its operating system cannot un-integrate it.
It is my contention that Microsoft's future corporate strategy revolves
around the development of a method of delivering digital content and
services (``DCS'') securely to a computer user, and that, as a
business, it is aware of how profitable this will be. Part of this effort
is the integration of Digital Rights Management (``DRM'') and
other schema (encryption, licensing, authentication, etc.) into daily use
of the computer through the Windows Explorer shell, and therefore through
IE. Any DRM scheme (et al.) proposed by Microsoft will therefore be very
lucrative for Microsoft, and for Microsoft's partners, by requiring any
user of Microsoft's software to pay a per-use Microsoft ``tax''
to access DCS via the internet, and by requiring any developer to license
this technology from Microsoft.
It is also my contention that the integration of IE with Windows was
purposefully undertaken by Microsoft to crush Netscape and establish market
dominance before the internet had grown to the point that the technologies
for the secure delivery of DCS were necessary, i.e., before there was a
market for such technologies. I tip my hat to Microsoft's business acumen.
However the internet has grown to the point that no one company can be
allowed to stand between the public and the information it offers, freely,
to all. With the vast majority of computer users using Microsoft operating
systems, this guarantees that internet access is contingent on satisfying
whatever conditions Microsoft chooses to impose.
It is my contention that DRM or other schema involved in the delivery of
DCS over the internet cannot be proprietary, and that the seeming
acceptance, on the part of the USDOJ, of the integration of IE with Windows
has given Microsoft an unfair advantage by allowing Microsoft to utilize
the leverage gained by establishing its web browser as the dominant web
browser to secure, future profits, which will allow Microsoft to unfairly
extend its monopoly into new computer technologies.
The Proposed Final Judgment does nothing to remedy this, but instead allows
Microsoft to profit from actions which would be prohibited under the terms
of the Proposed Final Judgment. I propose that the Proposed Final Judgment
``level the playing field'' by requiring, for example, that
language or provisions such as Section III.E of the Proposed Final Judgment
be stricken in toto:
``Section III.E ... exempts from these licensing requirements certain
very limited and specific portions or layers of Communications Protocols
which would, if disclosed, compromise the system security provided by
Microsoft anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption and authentication features.''
It is my contention that the only relief for Microsoft's past abuse is to
force Microsoft to openly and publicly disclose all features exempted by
the Proposed Final Judgment, to allow no exceptions to the rule of public
disclosure, and to require that this occur immediately, i.e., before the
one year deadline for disclosure of Microsoft's application programming
interfaces (``APIs''). This would allow the development of
competing applications immediately. Companies which have unfairly suffered
because of Microsoft's status as a monopoly will be able to offer competing
applications much sooner than they would have under the proposed schedule.
It would have the added benefit of allowing interested third parties to
examine Microsoft's proposed DRM, licensing, authentication, et al. to
ensure that security is not sacrificed for ``features''.
2. A. Microsoft's has repeatedly demonstrated that, as a corporation, it
does not place a great emphasis on security. B. This has placed an unfair
burden on American businesses and individual consumers to secure Microsoft
software. C. Microsoft's corporate values are a direct result of the
integration of Microsoft ``operating systems'' and
``applications'' development under one corporate umbrella. D. The
ease with which Microsoft application developers utilize features exclusive
to Microsoft operating systems contributes to a corporate climate which is
organizationally incapable of responding to security vulnerabilities which
exploit those features. E. The only remedy for this situation is to divide
the corporation into two separate halves--one to develop the operating
system and the other to develop applications to be run by the operating
system--and to require that any APIs necessary to properly integrate
an application with the operating system be disclosed to competitors in
accordance with the provisions of the Proposed Final Judgment.
I am aware that Microsoft's founder, Bill Gates, recently made a
pronouncement concerning computer and information security, in which he
stated that security must become Microsoft's top priority. As for me, this
is too little, too late. I believe the recent memorandum from Bill Gates is
part of Microsoft's strategy to create a safe harbor and shelter large
portions of its code base from the disclosure terms of the Proposed Final
Judgment--if every API has something to do with
``security'', none of them are required to be disclosed. This
must not be allowed to occur, and if the language of the Proposed Final
Judgment is allowed to stand, Microsoft's status as a monopoly will not
even be challenged.
The results of Microsoft's ``lip service'' to security have been
widely publicized. Computer worms and viruses written to exploit known
weaknesses in Microsoft software have, in the past year, cost American
businesses that depend on that software billions of dollars, and been a
terrible inconvenience for thousands of computer users who lost data,
personal or professional, to malicious code. I have personally invested in
anti-virus software and a firewall to prevent worms and viruses that
exploit known weaknesses in Microsoft software from affecting me. This may
be Microsoft's idea of ``driving software development'' or the
``upgrade cycle'', but it is not mine.
The ubiquity of Microsoft software is, in large part, responsible for the
cost of cleaning up after such outbreaks and patching vulnerabilities
caused by ``features'' that would have been exposed by a thorough
code audit, if security had ever been Microsoft's priority. For example,
Outlook Express (``OE''), by default, previews a message it
MTC-00023702--0008 receives if the ``preview pane'' is
turned on, and parses any executable script it encounters. This allows a
received message, without any further interaction from the user, simply on
the basis of being received by that user via OE, to execute malicious code
on that user's computer.
Who, at Microsoft, was responsible for making the decision to incorporate
this ``feature'' into OE? Why was it not reviewed and why was it
not decided that its inclusion would make OE too vulnerable to attack?
Microsoft, as a corporation, is not capable of developing a truly secure
application. The current code base is simply too large for even forty
thousand employees to accurately and completely review. It is therefore my
contention that Microsoft should be broken into two (or more) separate
companies, one to develop Microsoft operating systems, and one to develop
applications for Microsoft operating systems. Under the disclosure terms of
the Proposed Final Judgment and 1. above, any Final Judgment should require
Microsoft to disclose the APIs necessary to properly integrate an
application with the operating system in accordance with the provisions of
the Proposed Final Judgment. Requiring Microsoft to disclose any APIs
necessary for its applications developers to write applications that
seamlessly integrate with Microsoft operating systems would guarantee that
although Microsoft might gain
[[Page 27363]]
market share from new APIs which take advantage of integration with the
operating system, any competing application developer would be free to use
those APIs to enhance their own software in a unique way. Though Microsoft
might profit temporarily from the use of exclusive Microsoft APIs, it would
not be able to retain a monopoly through obscurity; Microsoft would be
forced to truly compete by developing applications which best serve the
needs of their users.
3. A. Microsoft has undertaken the development of tools (J++, J#,
C# and ``.NET'') which seek to supplant established
programming languages or internet protocols (C++, Java, etc.), and which
offer limited, or non-existent, functionality on computers not running
Microsoft operating systems or IE. B. These tools directly subvert the
open, non-proprietary standards which the internet was developed around. C.
Allowing Microsoft to further dilute these standards will increase the cost
America's consumers must pay to access DCS via the internet.
It is my contention that Microsoft has undertaken this action to further
extend its illegal monopoly, and dominate future internet technologies. The
Proposed Final Judgment does not completely remedy this. What has already
been proposed, ensuring that Microsoft is no longer allowed to punish
Original Equipment Manufacturers (``OEMs'') who choose to include
competing technologies in their hardware or software products, does limit
Microsoft's monopoly somewhat. However, it does not completely address the
issue because software developers will always be at Microsoft's mercy when
developing applications for Microsoft platforms via the application barrier
to entry. This issue is also addressed, in part, by requiring the
disclosure of Microsoft's APIs, which I have already commented on above.
I again assert that Microsoft should not profit from behavior that would
have been illegal if the terms of the Proposed Final Judgment had been in
force. By requiring the immediate disclosure of all APIs, DRM and other
schema, immediately and without exception, competing applications may be
developed using established programming languages or internet protocols
which provide as much functionality as applications developed using
proprietary Microsoft programming languages or internet protocols. This
would deny Microsoft the opportunity to further entrench itself as a DCS
provider by excluding its rivals with proprietary technologies which only
provide full functionality on computers running Microsoft's operating
systems or IE, with which Microsoft's proprietary programming languages or
internet protocols can be fully integrated.
The loss of revenue due to sales of J#, C# and .NET development
tools, instruction manuals, books, peripherals, etc. will be a punishment
that truly fits the crime. By trying to encompass and control access to the
internet, Microsoft will ensure that future internet technologies offer
truly universal access. This will benefit consumers by offering more
choices, not less, and by keeping the internet free of the control of
pervasive corporate interests which threaten it. DCS will remain
inexpensive, in that consumers will not have to pay a hefty
``tax'' to Microsoft (or any of its partners) simply to access
DCS via the internet. The internet was built with the tax dollars of
America's consumers, and should be managed by the government in concert
with the global community, corporations, and citizens the world over, on
behalf of all humanity. Microsoft must not be allowed to control access to
the internet, or relegate consumers to a ``second-class
internet'' simply because they are not Microsoft customers. This
concludes my comments. Thank you for your consideration.
J. C. Allen
MTC-00023703
From: Chris McGraw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the only viable settlement is none at all. Microsoft has had its
share of second chances and it's time they be punished for their crimes as
any other company would surely be. Their repeated monopolistic activities
and poor product making has lowered the standards of not only Americans,
but the world as well. Don't let them bully the world into their mediocre
ways. Chris McGraw
So the next time you're at work and thinking that the best thing about the
operating system you're using is FreeCell, consider asking your boss for a
Mac. If he refuses, consider getting belligerent and making thinly-veiled
threats of violence. What's the worst that could happen-- you could
get fired? Big deal; they made you use Windows anyway...
MTC-00023704
From: Dark Mage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04pm
Subject: Comment on U.S. v. Microsoft
To quote John Stuart Mill, ``The only freedom which deserves the name
is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not
attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain
it.'' I am a conservative, but unlike many of the famous conservatives
out there, I fully believe that the only proper settlement in this case is
to break up Microsoft. For I am also a network administrator in a mixed
Novell/Linux/Windows2k environment and have to face the hardships of this
monopoly everyday. When I see Novell struggling to keep their head above
water when their network operating system is far superior to that of
Microsoft. But they are losing ground anyway, partially because of
Microsoft's amazing marketing machine, but mostly because of Microsoft
using strengths in other areas to push their operating system. The
Exchange/Outlook combination for mail and calendar delivery has a very
slick interface that users like. It has tons of functionality bugs, and
many security holes, but it's pretty, and users (and CEOs) demand to run
it. And that's fine. That's market pressure. Unfortunately, you must run
Windows as a desktop OS, and Windows as a server OS, in order to do it.
Same with MS SQL Server 7. A fine product on its own, except that it is not
as scalable as Oracle, BECAUSE it has to run on Windows NT, which isn't as
scalable as the Unices and NetWare that Oracle runs on. So people buy more
NT and 2000 servers to run it.
And this is the problem. They have a very weak operating system that can't
compete on its own, so they use their influence in other markets to gain
monopolistic market share that they otherwise couldn't get. The only
solution to this is to split them in two. The applications and the
operating systems. The result of this would be products such as MS SQL
Server for Solaris. MS Office for Linux. And an operating system that would
work out its bugs and fix its security holes to survive rather than relying
on the crutch of the applications to stay number one.
It is my personal opinion that this is Mr. Gates'' ego at work.
Windows is his pet project. It's how he got his name. And he knows that
Windows would struggle in such an environment, so he resists a split being
ordered. Never mind that the application division would grow by leaps and
bounds, released form the shackles of only developing for Windows. Never
mind that true competition would return to the marketplace the likes of
which haven't been seen since Microsoft sabotaged Apple in the first place
by stealing their Macintosh interface from them (although they stole it
from Xerox, they asked Xerox nicely first). His baby, Windows, would be
hurt in the short term, and he can't let that happen. Unfortunately, this
course of action will hurt everyone else in the long term, and that is what
the Department of Justice originally set out to do. Hopefully they'll find
the stomach to return to this course of action and do what's right, not
what they think is the most politically popular because of a change in the
White House staffing.
Sincerely,
Jason L. Snowden
[email protected]
MTC-00023705
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:01pm
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,
Toni Crawford
[[Page 27364]]
915 E. 2nd St.
Moutain Home, AR 72653
MTC-00023706
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:03pm
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,
Karin Hurlburt
3814 Goldstein Lane
Louisville, KY 40272-2906
MTC-00023707
From: Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
To whom it my concern
Please do something about Microsoft. If you knew what I know about
computers you would act right away.
Regards
Price Sicard
MTC-00023708
From: C Zehner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08pm
Subject: Competition
Greetings,
It should be competition that makes microsoft penalized, not the court.
Time will come when someone will come up with a better mouse trap.....
Charlie Zehner
Monterey, Indiana
MTC-00023709
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:05pm
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,
Pauline Crawford
32178 Hwy 87
California, MO 65018-3251
MTC-00023710
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:04pm
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,
Gregory Lane
2667 Alosta Street
San Diego, CA 92154-4202
MTC-00023711
From: Kevin Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft and the affect on education
As a consumer and computer professional, I have a great deal of first-hand
experience in the affects of the Microsoft monopoly on the lives of
Americans and want to share them with you along with my comments.
A recent, and most disturbing episode that is *directly* relevent to the
remedy offered by Microsoft and accepted by the DOJ. My wife, a student at
the University of Texas at Dallas, is currently in an environment very much
like one that this settlement would create all over the United States. An
environment where Microsoft products are very close to free ($18 for MS
Office, compared to $600+ for consumers, for example) because of an
``agreement'' between UT and Microsoft.
In this environment, my wife had to take a mandatory course for anyone
graduating with a business (or business-related) degree. This course says
nothing about Microsoft products, quite the contrary really--it says
you will learn about basic computer functions, as well as word processing,
spreadsheets, etc. In the first meeting of this class, the professor said
the words that students all over this country will be hearing if this
remedy is put in place:
``I will only accept documents in Microsoft Office XP format, you can
pick it up down at the bookstore for $18'' The problem doesn't stop
there. The actual course material that this institute of higher learning is
using reads more like a Microsoft commercial than an impartial introduction
to computers that ``well-rounded'' people should received in
college. The course materials are all done in Microsoft proprietary
formats, and include a slide sporting the picture of Bill Gates, claiming
him to be ``the most influential man in computers''. In this same
courseware, there is a slide talking about operating systems. *Every*
shipping operating system from microsoft is listed, and over 20 operating
systems (just that *I* know of) that are Microsoft compeditors are not.
These students are the policy- and decision-makers of the future, and
everyone one of them from UT will *only* know about Microsoft technologies,
and being ignorant of alternatives will push these solutions in the
business world of the future. Not because it is ``innovative'',
not because it is even the ``best'' solution--but because
they don't know about anything else. They have been indoctrinated by school
mandate, and that is the end of the story.
The most likely, and most frightening, possibility to emerge from the
proposed settlement is that this problem will not be limited to the
University of Texas, but to every University in this country. What would
make it worse is that it would no longer be school mandated indoctrination,
but government mandated.
Just imagine if those overseeing the anti-trust hearings for AT&T had
simply said--``Your punishment is to make long-distance service
cheaper for families with children'', or worse yet, ``you must
give out free extra lines to families with children''. Today, we would
all have AT&T service, and I'm quite sure it wouldn't be 7 cents/
minute.
I urge you to consider real behavioral remedy, if it is going to be taken.
Make them open up their file formats, so that compeditors can interoperate
and compete for market share. Make them pay money, not software (which
really costs them nothing at all). (As Microsoft has proven with the
University of Texas, they are making these deals for near-free software
with schools without being forced to--and not because it's charity,
but because it's good business for the future. To really give competition a
chance, make them pay the damages (as money, not software) to a non-profit
foundation that can be used to help software projects that compete with
Microsoft to get equal access to markets. If Microsoft will give software
to schools, then this fund could be used to help offset the costs of
smaller compeditors to do the same. Students, and all Americans, should
have choice, and if breaking up Microsoft is not the solution, we must make
sure that Microsoft cannot use its size and cash reserves to prevent others
from having access to student and consumer mindshare as well.
[[Page 27365]]
In conclusion, I urge you to consider a remedy that will insure a future
that is full of opportunity for all. The worst thing to come of this would
be to find ourselves in this same monopolized environment in 10 years, but
with one key difference--*no* competing companies left to choose from.
Kevin Taylor
Innovative Linux Solutions
[email protected]
Phone: (972) 437-0343
Fax: (972) 422-8678
Cell: (214) 763-9507
280 E. FM 544
Suite 104-113
Murphy, TX 75094-4021
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023712
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Judge Kollar-Kotally:
I have recently read a brief concerning the proposed settlement of the
Antitrust violations committed by Microsoft and I believe they do nothing
to punish or prevent Microsoft from continuing to violate the laws of our
country. As a user of the computer I believe that all companies
participating in that business should be able to play on a level field.
Microsoft has over the past 5 to 7 years prevented the computer field from
being anything but level. I strongly request that the present Proposed
Final Judgment (PFJ) be evaluated and changed to a meaningful finding of a
company that has truly been found guilty of severe antitrust violations.
Respectfully
Joseph L. Parrillo
1679 Capri Way
Charlottesville, VA
22911
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023713
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10pm
Subject: Freedom please
Please give us all freedom from MS monopoly, that is duty bound to serve
itself interest and thereby served is corrupt and knows no political
philosophy.
Carl Vilbrandt, MFA, Associate Professor
University of Aizu------Computer Arts Lab
Tsuruga, lkki-machi, Aizu-Wakamatsu City, Fukushima, 965-8580 JAPAN
phone 81-242-37-2792 / fax
81-242-37-2772 / email [email protected]
MTC-00023714
From: hank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is not a wise one. I think that returning
the choice of what software to use--by giving money--to the
recipients would be appropriate. Giving more Microsoft products away
increases Microsoft's dominance.
I have been using personal computers since before the Microsoft company was
formed and before the first IBM PC was available, using dBase and WordStar
first on a CompuPro computer operating using CP/M and CP/M-86, and later on
an original IBM PC operating under CP/M, DR-DOS and finally the Concurrent
DOS operating systems.
Hank Roberts
1529 Beverly Place
Berkeley Ca 94706
MTC-00023715
From: Andrew Vinton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am software developer, as well as a user of commercial software. I firmly
believe that we all benefit from free and fair competition in the software
market place.
Over many years, I have watched Microsoft use their near monopoly in the
computer operating system market to drive competitors into obscurity or out
of business. They have used predatory pricing tactics.
They have coerced computer vendors to prevent them from installing
competing software on computers that the vendors are offering for sale. The
best known examples are their dealings with competitors to Microsoft Word
and Internet Explorer. Their recent attempts to steal the market for Java
from Sun Microsystems and others are not well known to the general public,
but no less ruthless.
When I heard that the Justice Department was suing Microsoft, I hoped that
something would be done to curb Microsoft's behavior and restore a little
balance to the market place. What I am hearing about the proposed
settlement indicates to me that in the short term very little will be done,
and that in the long term, Microsoft will be largely trusted to monitor
it's own compliance with the few restrictions that are imposed. The
company's consistent history of ruthlessness tells me that any such
monitoring will be worthless.
Microsoft has worked very hard to negotiate a settlement that will not hurt
them in any way. I fear that they have succeeded. This distresses me
because I am convinced that they will conclude that there is no reason for
them not to continue their misbehavior.
Sincerely,
Andy Vinton
[email protected]
MTC-00023716
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:09pm
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,
Robert Moss
32 NE 29th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334-1043
MTC-00023717
From: L Vogtmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do NOT agree with the settlement. I am a cosignor of Dan Kegel's
comments.
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Lyle D. Vogtmann
MTC-00023718
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:11pm
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,
Brent Brent
725 Lambert Drive
Nashville, TN 37220
MTC-00023719
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:14pm
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
[[Page 27366]]
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,
Joy Ann Roberts
1656 Westminster Drive
Apt. 8
Green Bay, WI 54302-5740
MTC-00023720
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:17pm
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,
stan mcdonald
97 admiral point circle
dawsonville, GA 30534
MTC-00023721
From: Bill Bremer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:18pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
I see the proposed ``settlement'' which Microsoft has offered as
no settlement at all... and does nothing to stop Microsoft from continuing
the ruthless practices which brought them to the attention of the Federal
Courts in the first place.
I honestly can't believe the Microsoft co. actually thinks this is a fair
settlement of their case... or if so, then only fair for Microsoft... In no
way does their offer to put old computers, using only their products,
recompense the software developers they shafted, or the public, whose
access to these alternative products they have tried to deny...
I think that if Microsoft's proposal of a billion dollars was to be
considered at all, then the only fair thing for the public, would be to
have a cash only deal, no strings attached, to the school- systems chosen
to participate in the proposed settlement. Then the school systems
themselves could choose which computer systems and which software they
would prefer to actually use, instead of having no choice in the matter at
all. Giving ``no choice'' seems to be the ``Microsoft
Way'', after all. I believe that Microsoft sees this as another way
for them to weasel their way into the pockets of the American public. This
time through the children in some of the poorest schools in our country...
Schools, which given a ``Choice'', might very well not wish to be
using the products foisted upon them, by a company whose tarnished
reputation is not exactly what they would be wishing to present to their
classes every day.
I believe this is just a very transparent attempt by Microsoft to to gain
market share in one of the few remaining areas in which it doesn't already
dominate. As long as Microsoft is the one who is to set the rules on how
the proposed settlement money is doled out, then there will never be a
``fair'' conclusion to this case. Secondly,
I see no way that the proposed settlement makes any amends to the software
developers and other companies which were harmed by their overly aggressive
and unlawful business practices.
If fair was fair, then these are some of the ones who should be making
suggestions as to what steps should be taken to make sure that this company
is not allowed to continue the practices which brought them to the
attention of the courts in the first place...
Finally... I don't believe that a defendant found guilty, should be the one
turned to, when it comes time to suggest either a penalty or a remedy.
Thank you...
Bill Bremer
Benson, NC
MTC-00023722
From: Trust Me
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:19pm
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,
AJ Sacco, Palatine, IL
MTC-00023723
From: Jesse Stence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
Please settle this suite soon, as Microsoft has bent over backwards to try
to settle. It appears that a lot of companies want a bit of Microsoft. Is
there any mercy left in the court system?
Sincerely,
Jesse Stence
MTC-00023724
From: Brian Bliss
[[Page 27367]]
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 11:20pm
Subject: Another example of Microsoft's behavior
Here is just one example of Microsoft's anti-competitive conduction that
may have been overlooked:
Somewhere in the 1997-1998 time frame, Netscape Communicator was
distributed online as a single downloadable file of approximately 13 Mb. At
the same time, Internet Explorer limited the size of files that it could
download to just under that, so that you could not use Internet Explorer to
download the latest version of Communicator. Instead, one had to download
an older version of Communicator and install it, then use it to download
the latest version.
This ``trap'' frustrated a friend of mine enough that, after
purchasing a new computer, he switched to using Internet Explorer (which
was, of course, pre-installed on the new computer), when he preferred to
continue using Communicator. The Internet Explorer file size limit was so
close to the size of the file distributed by Netscape that I do not believe
it was a coincidence.
I do not believe that Microsoft can be trusted to to comply with the spirit
of any court order which limits its anticompetitive conduct. Even if the
loopholes in the current remedy were closed so that Microsoft does not have
control over the content that computer manufacturers add to Windows, it
does not (nor can it) prevent Microsoft from producing software whose
behavior makes it inconvenient to use a competitor's products. If Windows
were distributed under an open source license, however, the anti-
competitive tweaks that Microsoft adds to its software could be quickly
located and removed.
Brian Bliss
42638 Isle Royal
Fremont, CA 94538
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00023725
From: John Athayde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern--
The settlement that you all are proposing does not solve many of the issues
that tax payer money has been funding the fight against and in fact will
allow the company to return to it's anti-competitive practices as of the
next generation of it's OS (and variants thereof).
Because of the way that you have defined ``Windows Operating System
Product,'' any issue of the Win32 based operating system branded as
Microsoft Windows that is not
--Windows 2000 Professional
--Windows XP Home
--Windows XP Professional is not party to this agreement and therefore
cannot be held under the regulations it implies. Simple language such as
``including but not limited to'' or ``including all future
products developed as'' etc.
This is already an issue in the example of Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.
Since that is neither Windows XP Home nor Windows XP Professional, it would
appear to be exempt from this ruling. Since this is the DOJ's settlement,
contra proferendum would work against the US Government and allow Microsoft
leeway, since the Government failed to properly define this item. Same
issue exists with ``Windows CE''.
There are many things like this throughout the settlement, which does
little to quench the key problem: The method Microsoft employs is total
domination of the market. If they can't innovate it, buy it. If they can't
buy it, copy it and market the hell out of it until the competition
succumbs. The DOJ should push for Microsoft to open up it's APIs, prohibit
the Microsoft ability to retaliate against OEMs that ship computers without
a Microsoft OS (section III A 2), and afford smaller OEMs, outside the top
20, the same rights of disclosure (Section III B) if they offer competing
products.
I use Microsoft products. I'm typing in a Microsoft program right now. The
DOJ needs to represent the rights of the majority of the citizens of the
United States in providing fair competition and other open standards that
Microsoft has repeatedly shown it cannot or will not provide on it's own
accord.
Thank you for your time.
John Athayde
General Partner
Meticulous Design Group
Washington, DC
contact:
202.285.3544
[email protected]
http://www.meticulous.com/
MTC-00023726
From: Karl Randolph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23pm
Subject: Not a good settlement
Karl W. Randolph.
44 Edinburgh Street
San Francisco, CA 94112
[email protected]
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
Re: Microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney Hesse: In the 1800s, railroads would charge high rates on
lines where they had no competition, so that they could use the revenues to
subsidize lines where they had competition. If that competition was
smaller, particularly when that line was its main revenue producing asset,
this tactic often was able to ruin that competition. This was what the
anti-trust laws were originally written to address.
Fast forward to the 1990s. Instead of physical tracks, we have software
categories. There is the operating system category, word processing
category, the spreadsheet category, several other categories and a new one
in the 1990s, the web browser category.
The people at Microsoft pretty much ignored the web browser market other
than to produce Internet Explorer and charge market rates for it. That is,
until the head of Netscape, Mr. Andreeson, publicly admitted that the
Netscape web browser was the same as a front end for a windowing operating
system. He speculated that he could develop his web browser into an
operating system.
Windows is an operating system. It is the software category that Microsoft
considers its most valuable asset. It is the asset that Microsoft uses to
leverage its other software assets to give them greater market share, and
to charge higher prices. Microsoft also uses the availability of its other
software products to help it sell Windows. It is that synergy that
Microsoft uses to consolidate, maintain and expand its monopolies.
Microsoft reacted as a classic nineteenth century trust. Whereas Internet
Explorer was only a minor revenue source for Microsoft, its competition
from Netscape was Netscape's main revenue source. By giving Internet
Explorer away for free, Microsoft was able to impoverish Netscape to
prevent it from producing a competing operating system. This is just one
example of Microsoft maintaining its monopolies. This is the example that
is the basis for the guilty verdict in the anti-trust suit.
What is the proper sentencing as befitting this illegality? As per two
paragraphs above, Microsoft uses a synergy between its operating system
software and its applications software to consolidate, maintain and expand
its monopolies. Therefore, it is logical that an effective way to prevent
Microsoft from continuing its illegal actions is to break it up into two
companies: the operating system company selling Windows with Internet
Explorer, since it is finally integrated into Windows; and the applications
software company. I still think that would be the best response.
The proposed settlement announced by the Justice Department does nothing to
address the continuing actions by Microsoft to maintain its monopolies. As
such, it is an affront to the American people.
The proposed settlement is bad for the American consumers. By maintaining
its monopolies, Microsoft is denying American consumers the best software
that could be made.
The proposed settlement is bad for business. There are whole regions in the
software world that are virtual wastelands, with Microsoft software leaving
no real competition. It is known in investment circles that it is very
difficult to impossible to raise investment capital to develop products to
compete with Microsoft software because Microsoft's predatory tactics will
make it difficult to recover the development costs.
The proposed settlement is bad for the country. In a time that we are at
war against terrorism, the quality of Microsoft's software, both its
operating system software and its applications software, are a liability in
this war. Because of the software bugs and design failings, it makes the
American economy open to cyber attack and other mischief.
The proposed settlement is bad because it not only does not address
Microsoft's efforts to maintain its monopolies, but it actually helps
Microsoft increase its monopoly position.
In conclusion, the proposed settlement ought to be rejected to get an
effective answer to Microsoft's illegal actions that resulted in the guilty
verdict in the anti-trust trial.
[[Page 27368]]
Yours,
Karl W. Randolph.
MTC-00023727
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Again I implore you to settle the suit against the most inovative company
anywhere in the world. Please don't stifle initiative and progressive
creativity.
Paul smith
MTC-00023728
From: Mic Westcoat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the current Proposed Final Judgment (PJF) and believe that
it is not in the public interest because I feel it is not adequate enough
to remedy Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. One area that I feel the
PJF is inadequate in its efforts to erode the Applications Barrier to
Entry.
To remedy that, Microsoft should be required to standardize and publish all
of it's APIs to more freely enable competing operating systems and products
(such as the Linux middleware know as WINE) to directly run software
written for Windows. It should be ensured that Microsoft is powerless to
hinder such products, whether by changing its APIs, or by any other means.
I feel the successful completion of such products is essential to breaking
Microsoft's monopoly and ensuring a more competitive field of operating
systems.
An amended PJF should do everything it can to insure that such middleware
projects have whatever information and cooperation they need from Microsoft
in order to succeed. I feel the current PJF will not accomplish this.
I would also like to state that I am endorsing Dan Kegel's Open Letter,
which is available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Sincerely,
Michael T. Westcoat
MTC-00023729
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23pm
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,
Roger K. Anderson
7400 Glen Leaf Dr. #193
Shreveport, LA 71129
MTC-00023730
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24pm
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,
Jan Henshaw
6009 SE Heike St.
Hillsboro, OR 97123-8296
MTC-00023731
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23pm
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,
Glen Moore 407 E. State St. Apt. A Fremont, OH 43420
MTC-00023732
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24pm
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,
David Flower
3619 N Del Lu Dr
Springfield, MO 65803
MTC-00023733
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:23pm
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,
Brad Mahle
RD#4
Box 137C
Brookville, PA 15825
MTC-00023734
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
The governments of many states as well as the US government are becoming
destructive to this society. They go after businesses like the tobacco
companies, gun manufacturers, and companies like Microsoft. It is high time
for the Microsoft suit to end. It is far from being a monopoly. As an
example I do not use their operating system, yet I choose to use their
Internet Explore.
If Netscape wishes to sue Microsoft over some issue that is one thing, but
if the government gets involved that is quite another matter all together.
[[Page 27369]]
Please stop the lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Ron Williams
4206 Gertrude St.
Simi Valley, CA 93063-2928
MTC-00023735
From: Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anittrust trial.
The predatory behavior and laws that Microsoft have broken are in no way
reflected in the proposal. A much stronger remedy must be enacted which
keeps the best interest of the citizens of the US in mind. A decision which
favors the right for linux and open source projects/products to innovate,
as well as Microsoft competitors, is necessary. Microsoft is not in need of
leniency, they are one of the most powerful corporations in history,
literally controlling the entire computer landscape. They must NOT be
treated with kid gloves, but kept in check, especially considering all of
their past predatory actions. If we do not act strongly and swiftly, I fear
that the innovation of computation as a tool for humanity will be
significantly hampered.
Sincerely,
Alexander Schwarm, Ph.D.
9303 La Puente Dr.
Austin, TX 78749
MTC-00023736
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:24pm
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,
Danny Critser
5070 Willow Avenue
Kelseyville, CA 95451
MTC-00023737
From: Michelle Ingram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree with the proposed settlement.
MTC-00023738
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Once again I wish to express how I feel about the importance of settling
the Microsoft case. I am disapppointed that AOL Time Warner has filed a
suit against Microsoft. Maybe it is time for the government to look at AOL.
Isn't it time that the government not be deterred by companies that I feel
are taking advantage and jumping on the proverbial bandwagon for their own
self interest? I might add that it is unfair, unjust and self-serving.
Please settle this case and stop the obvious motives to prolong the
settlement.
MTC-00023739
From: R. Knox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the proposed settlement is lacking in very important ways. One
desirable goal is to allow vendors to create an environment in UNIX style
operating systems which allow windows applications to run outside the
Microsoft controlled environment. The proposed settlement does nothing to
implement this.
The Proposed solution restricts information released to be used ``for
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System
Product''. This prohibits innovators from using Microsoft technical
specification information for the purpose of writing UNIX or Linux based
systems that run Windows programs. You are locking windows programs into
the Microsoft owned environment--making stronger their monopoly.
Richard Knox
MTC-00023740
From: Matt Kuhns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
I am writing to express my comments on the proposed Final Judgment in the
Microsoft antitrust case, and to urge you to reject the current settlement
terms.
After years of blatant misconduct by Microsoft, followed by years of legal
battles, Microsoft was officially found guilty of abusing monopoly power.
With that unambiguous judgment in hand, there should be no question of
whether or not Microsoft's misdeeds will continue. Yet the proposed
settlement leaves the door wide open for Microsoft to continue abusing its
unbroken monopoly power. Essentially the ``solution'' offered for
Microsoft's violations of the law is that they promise to follow rules
which restrict them from breaking the law. In the face of Microsoft's
repeatedly-proven indifference to laws and regulations, the idea that this
settlement will have any impact on them is insulting.
I don't believe anyone is fooling themselves in regards to the proposed
settlement, either. The terms have been roundly criticized by media
observers too great in number to dismiss as a biased minority. Nine
states'' Attorneys General, after investing great effort to bring
Microsoft to justice, have declared the settlement's terms unacceptable and
chosen to fight on.
I find it unlikely that you really have any more enthusiasm for this
settlement than they do. There is, I realize, considerable political
pressure to let Microsoft off the hook. But that's all the more reason why
their power needs to be broken.
After all the arguments surrounding this settlement, the fact remains that
Microsoft is guilty of consistent, illegal abuse of monopoly power. The
sole effective solution for abuse of monopoly power is to end the monopoly.
Break up Microsoft.
A Microsoft break-up will free the market from Microsoft's heavy hand, and
restore natural competition. Ultimately everyone will benefit; businesses,
customers, investors and even Microsoft itself. Please, do the right thing
and abandon the proposed settlement in favor of a real solution.
Sincerely,
Matt Kuhns
[email protected]
MTC-00023741
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:31pm
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,
Bonnie Graham
5783 N. 6th St.
Kalamazoo , MI 49009
MTC-00023742
From: Jake Phuoc Trong Ha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please don't break Microsoft, they are best what they have been doing to
offer customers the best OS ever made!! Thanks
MTC-00023743
From: Edan Lev-Ari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust
trial. I feel that the currently proposed settlement does not fully address
the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, or stop their ability to
commit similar actions(crimes) in the future. I do not believe that the
current proposal adequately protects or compensates
[[Page 27370]]
those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of small and large companies have ceased to exist over the years
because of Microsoft's exploitation of their monopolies on operating
systems and office applications. Microsoft's monopoly has done incalculable
damage to the technology industry.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only formalize
the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will effectively stop
Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly position in the operating
system market. This is especially important because the seriousness of
Microsoft's past transgressions. If Microsoft is not stopped now, their
monopoly will only grow more oppressive.
Most importantly, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or
redress their past abuses (many in violation of previous consent decree's).
They prohibit only the future repetition of those past abuses. This, I
think, 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 and not been
punished. That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not
for the American people.
I have been using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when my parents
brought home a Macintosh Plus. I have seen the death and withering of all
commercial, consumer directed, non Microsoft computing platforms (Amiga,
Atari ST, Macintosh). Much of this has been the results of Microsoft
exploiting their dominant market position by bundling software together and
by exploiting closed file formats and protocols.
Microsoft has adopted a policy of ``embrace and extend.''
Microsoft will embrace an open standard. Then, Microsoft will
``extend'' the standard. Each time Microsoft does this; they
split the market between the open standard and the Microsoft standard. All
people working with the open standard must then rewrite their software/
hardware to support with Microsoft's extended standard since Microsoft is
%90+ of the operating system market. Microsoft tries to spilt virtually
every open standard into two incompatible versions; a proprietary Microsoft
version and an open version. Microsoft then exploits the standards chaos
they created to lock competitors.
While the Court's desire that a settlement is reached is well-intentioned,
it is plain wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's sake.
A wrong that is not corrected is many times compounded.
Sincerely,
Edan Lev-Ari [[email protected]]
MTC-00023744
From: John Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer support professional who works for a specialized software
company, I have seen victims of Microsoft's monopoly that are normally not
reported on in the mainstream media: their customers. Because of
Microsoft's operating system and Office software monopolies, the only
software available for my customers'' unique needs requires Microsoft
products. Other companies offer comparable software, but it too runs on
Microsoft. With no real competition, Microsoft's products have become low
quality, and the American economy suffers because of it. I have witnesed
numerous small insurance agencies that have been either unable to operate
effectively or at all, due to failures of Microsoft software, and from
infections from computer viruses--most of which are caused by security
lapses in Microsoft's software. --
John Andrews
[email protected]
http:-bs-bsaattic.inav.n
et
MTC-00023745
From: Lee Busby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Sirs:
I attach a PDF file containing my letter regarding the proposed microsoft
settlement, and will fax a signed copy shortly.
Thank you--
Lee Busby
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023746
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:33pm
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 Guinane
1060 E. Broadmor Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85282
MTC-00023747
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:33pm
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,
Elmer LeLeux
4909 Dolphin Street
New Iberia, LA 70560
MTC-00023748
From: steve hanlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The United States should not accept the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
I feel this is a very bad idea and Microsoft should be given a just
punishment for their crimes. A quick settlement does nothing to prevent
this type of business practice from occuring in the future. The DOJ exists
to protect the interests of the public, not the corporations.
Steven Hanlon
US Citizen
(address and SSN available unpon request)
MTC-00023749
From: Head of the Councel of Wizards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:37pm
Subject: Concerning the microsoft antitrust case.
First, let me make it clear that I'm a capitalist in pursuit of the all-
allusive dollar. I have been in the computer industry for approaching 20
years, and was on the Internet 15 years before it became the Information
Super Hi-way.
Now, I'm worried about my industry. Innovation has been squashed many times
over the last 13 years. DRDOS was disabled, OS-2 discarded, Netscape was
crushed, among many others. I'm afraid if something isn't done to stop
Microsoft, innovation in our industry will be outlawed. Microsoft has done
a good job of promoting themselves over there competitors. To good a job.
They were allowed to build an operating system that dominated the industry,
then they wrote the major applications used by that operating system to
lock out other operating systems, even if they were more efficient and more
powerful. This eliminated DR DOS, OS2 and several others. I've worked in
and around ISP's for 10 years, and 5 years ago, when they decided to start
doing there own network, they came into ISP's, and used the same tactics in
the ISP world. The one I've particularly hated has been there embrace and
extend methodology. This has effected my job many times.
They have been given chances before. They've been slapped on the hand by
the courts many times. Even now, they are having there own people flood
online polls, etc to improve how they rate against there competitors. I'm
willing to bet that sending
[[Page 27371]]
you email has been done by most everyone in the company. They've also been
caught forging letters to politicians. You might want to check and make
sure all the email you receive is from people that are still alive. My
letter is digitally signed, and NOT forged.
You may contact me to verify this is the letter I've sent. Thank you for
your time.
Richard Hart
1298 Columbine Drive
Castle Rock, CO 80104
303 660-0784
MTC-00023750
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38pm
Subject: I protest the Microsoft Settlement.
I have followed the Microsoft anti-trust case and read the proposed
settlement--and I have to say that I am deeply horrified. Why is the
DOJ letting a proven illegal monopoly off the hook?
We have seen MS extend it's tentacles in subtle yet devastating ways. They
claim that there is viable competition and yet have the power to sweep that
away at a stroke at any time.
To pick just one of hundreds of events, consider the recent news that
Microsoft purchased dozens of patent rights relating to 3D graphics from
Silicon Graphics Inc. At first sight, this is no big deal--but those
of us who try to use 3D graphics in a non-Microsoft Operating System can
see this as a way to wipe out their competition at a stroke.
There is a pre-existing 3D graphics standard ('OpenGL') that was created by
Silicon Graphics--and which is covered by many of the patents that
Microsoft now own. Microsoft hate OpenGL because it's a portable, universal
standard. Instead of embracing a universal standard, they methodically set
out to create a deliberately (and unnecessarily) incompatible competitor.
The support for OpenGL under Microsoft OS's has eroded steadily. Now they
have the power to completely eradicate it--not just on their own
platform--but on everyone else's too.
If that happens then Linux and MacOS will no longer have the ability to
render 3D images. Period. There will then be no possibility of computer
games on any other OS. No domestic computer users will even consider a
platform that cannot run 3D games and Linux and MacOS will be sunk.
The OpenSource community could design a new 3D graphics interface from
scratch--but pursuading the hardware vendors such as nVidia and ATI to
support it is truly an impossibility. nVidia in particular cannot afford to
upset Microsoft because such a large fraction of their revenue is coming
from another one of Microsoft's tentacles--the X-Box video game
system.
This is but one example--I could list dozens of others. The point is
that if MS had a monopoly in just one narrow area, a small, dedicated group
could try to compete against it--but when they spread tentacles into
MANY areas, the synergy that this generates for them can make it literally
impossible to get competition started. Splitting the company in two parts
was a GOOD solution. I am disgusted that this is now off the table in favor
of this watered down, ineffectual sell-out.
Steve Baker
Mail: [[email protected]]
WorkMail: [[email protected]]
URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org
MTC-00023751
From: Marty Criswell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Marty Criswell 730 Allen rd Lot 170 Manhattan, KS 66502 and I
wanted to give my view on how Microsoft should be disciplined for violating
antitrust laws. The easiest solution I believe would to require Microsoft
to open the source code for the operating system. Microsoft would be able
to keep the source for the other products but would no longer be able to
prohibit other software developers from producing better programs.
MTC-00023752
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35pm
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,
Chris & John Luckie
21680 Fortuna Mine Road
Sonora, CA 95370
MTC-00023753
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:35pm
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,
Marlene Spicer & Family
805 South 17th Street
Grand Forks, ND 58201-4240
MTC-00023754
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:38pm
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I don't like the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Rather than addressing
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, I believe it actually helps them to
further strengthen their monopoly by gaining a bigger foothold in the
public schools.
I would like to see a settlement that will make it easier for software
companies to compete with Microsoft so that consumers such as myself can
enjoy tangible benefits, such as improvements in security, better
interoperability with other software, or simply lower prices. My belief is
that requiring Microsoft to publish detailed specifications of file
formats, communication protocols, and programming interfaces would allow
software companies to write interoperable software which would then result
in meaningful, realistic, long-term competition in the personal computer
software industry.
Thank you for allowing me to email my comments.
Mike Wright
1050 Meadowlark Dr.
Enon, OH 45323
MTC-00023755
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36pm
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 Tucker
11420 Eucalyptus Hills Dr.
Lakeside, CA 92040-1211
MTC-00023756
From: S. Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27372]]
Date: 1/24/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
The proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust case does nothing to
address the basic issue of illegal business practices that Microsoft has
engaged in. Any settlement needs to deal directly with these illegal
business pracitices to prevent any reoccurance in the future.
It is necessary to have an open and freely operating computer industry.
Microsoft has been a bottleneck throttling down the creativity and
innovation that has been a characteristic until Microsoft decided that all
innovation should come from them.
The current settlement is a travisty and should not be implemented.
MTC-00023757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:36pm
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,
Marilyn Jordan
3214 Washington Rd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
MTC-00023758
From: Zachary McCord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:41pm
Subject:
Insufficient Microsoft antitrust action
I am deeply concerned about the limited effects of the antitrust action
against Microsoft Corporation.I believe the current PFJ leaves a number of
loopholes that Microsoft Corporation may be able to use to reduce the
effects of the PFJ
*The PFJ's definition of ``middleware'' includes Outlook Express,
but fails to include the more powerful Outlook application and Microsoft
Office itself, despite the fact that Office contains applications that fit
the definition of middleware. The PFJ also allows Microsoft to negate the
effects of the sections pertaining to middleware by changing version
numbers, and would not cover new versions of Microsoft software. It also
does refer to Microsoft java, but does not refer to Microsoft.net and
C#, both of which are intended by Microsoft to replace the
aforementioned Microsoft Java application.
*The PFJ's definition of API is too narrow to include certain key Microsoft
APIs such as Windows installation APIs.
*The PFJ's definition of ``Windows'' does not include Windows
2000 (as opposed to Windows 2000 Professional), Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition and Windows CE. Many applications need little or no alteration to
be used in other Microsoft platforms.
*The PFJ gives no real means of enforcement.
*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.
Zachary McCord, Student
MTC-00023759
From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:41pm
Subject: Netscape vs Explorer
This latest suit by AOL against Microsoft over the Netscape browser, (that
they bought knowing full well that it was an inferior browser), is invalid.
The DoJ should see this for what it really is, Netscape represents about
%10 of browser usage. This is the state of things simply because it is an
inferior product compared to Explorer. It does not support XML or web
services, it does not follow the W3 consortium standards for the DOM
(document object model), does not handle stylesheets properly, does not
support Iframes, etc. The list of problems with Netscape is endless and
that is why they lost market share. Microsoft simply built a better
product. It would be like Ford suing Toyota because the Escort lost market
share to the Corolla, that market share was lost because Corollas are
better cars than Escorts.
Lets let the web publishing industry get back to normal, browsers are NOT
about technology they are about the electronic equivalent of paper and ink,
and Microsoft is ahead because they worked harder, faster and smarter at
giving consumers a great Internet experience. If Netscape is so great then
why is AOL itself still shipping an ``embedded'' version of
Microsoft Explorer as their ``AOL'' browser. They are not even
using their OWN product in their OWN user interface, but instead chose
Microsoft.
go figure,
Richard Hansen
MTC-00023760
From: GARY A MODUN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:40pm
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Suit
Dear Attorney Gen. Ashcroft:
I have followed the Government's case against Microsoft over the past few
years and I am writing to ask you to please grant your approval to the
pending agreement so that we can all move on with much, much more important
matters like keeping secure our rights, liberty, and basic freedoms from
this unprecedented onslaught of terrorist activity. Please, Sir, there are
much more pressing and urgent matters confronting the nation than to expend
precious public resources and time continuing to take action against a U.S.
corporation that has done much to enhance the lives of individuals and
business in general. It is past time for all parties to agree to a just
compromise and move on. I am looking forward to your approval of this
settlement that is fair, just, and beneficial for all parties involved.
Thank you,
Mr. Attorney General, for your time and consideration.
Sincerely Yours,
Gary A. Modun
Olympia, Wash.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023761
From: Richard Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:41pm
Subject: Please consider the future
Dear Sirs:
I've worked in the technology industry for over 10 years, and am president
of MATRIX Information Systems Inc. I've seen the rise of Microsoft, and
witnessed their business practices and find it amazing that such practices
are condonned by the American justice system. If the proposed settlement is
accepted, Microsoft would have gotten away with a mere slap on the wrist
(if that), and would essentially have complete authority to continue doing
what it has been doing, maybe even going beyond those limits. I see a very
tough time for any competition, and likely a rough ride for the open source
movement and any technical inovators.
Interesting how Microsoft even now is extending it's monopoly to the
``family room'' with the X-Box, and using .NET in an attempt to
take over the Internet. I don't have a problem with a company being
successfull, but I do have a problem with the business practices of
Microsoft, and especially their technology. Their technology is closed,
lacks security and lags behind others, but continues to thrive because of
lack of choice for the consumer. I guess a marketing campaign of Fear,
Uncertainty and Deceit, really does work.
Here is one case where the justice system could make a real difference to
the average person, by giving them choice, competition and quality, in
other words ``breaking up MS''. I doubt whether they would have a
chance if they had to face real competition, and were not allowed to
continue their illegal activities.
I guess this is a test case to see if Microsoft managed to put a little
``weight'' on the scales of justice in their favour. I'm sure
this is likely the case, just too bad we like to talk about freedom, and
independance, and justice, but really it is just talk. When the opportunity
presents itself to put our princibles before our corporations, we always
choose our corporations (that's the American way).
Thanks,
Richard J. Becker
MTC-00023762
From: Jay Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27373]]
Date: 1/24/02 11:42pm
Subject: More on Microsoft
Hello,
Could you PLEASE put an end to this madness?? AOL is now suing Microsoft.
Give me a break... I like Netscape. I like Internet Explorer... Let ME
choose which I want. I do NOT want the court system determining which is
better, which is more honest, which is more whatever. I WANT TO CHOOSE.
Please end the suit and let the American Public decide with their
``dollar votes''
Respectfully,
James K. Dahl
3815 South Kalispell Street
Aurora, CO 80013-2703
voice: 303.693.9869
fax: 303.617.0308
email: [email protected]
MTC-00023763
From: LK Oon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is a BAD idea!
MTC-00023764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:41pm
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,
barb peace
845 n hasmer hill rd
osgood, IN 47037-9396
MTC-00023765
From: richard (038) dianna sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
AOL and the government need to get out of the courts in regard to these
technical issues. The reason I use the MS browser is that it is better than
Netscape. I had Netscape, provided to me free by my isp and I changed
because I did not like it as well as the MS browser. Since I did not pay
for either one how was AOL hurt? If AOL has its way we all would be held
hostage to them. AOL is much more anti consumer than anyone I know. I
cannot IM with my brother because he has to use AOL. AOL blocks his access
to me and my access to him. Get lost AOL. you are in second place because
you are not as good.
Get out of the way, and out of court, US government, and let the
marketplace decide who is best.
MTC-00023766
From: Steve Curtin
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Curtin
7047 W Lamplighter St
Boise, ID 83703
January 24, 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,
Steve Curtin
MTC-00023767
From: Pkshadow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is wrong. It is a simple answer that all the public knows.
This settlement benefits MS and not the public.
MTC-00023768
From: James Wall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. A major reason for this is
the lack of a quick and efficient means to enforce this agreement.
Microsoft is well known for it's persistent use of any tactic, legal and
illegal, to avoid and circumvent any agreement that they feel prevents them
from achieving goal they have. This creates a situation where the Guardian
of the Public Good is muzzled and gagged. --
James Wall
[email protected]
MTC-00023769
From: Derek Dohler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
None of the arguments that I might make regarding this settlement are
likely to be ones which have not been heard before. So I will be brief, and
simply state that I feel very strongly that Microsoft must be dealt with in
a manner appropriate to its actions. It has acted illegally, and it must
now pay the consequences. A breakup would be an ideal solution. Although I
realize that a breakup is unlikely, Microsoft MUST not get away with a
``slap on the wrist'', or it will prove that anyone with enough
money can defy even the government.
Thank you for your time.
Derek Dohler
Concerned Citizen
MTC-00023770
From: Bob Techentin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to submit an opinion for your consideration during the Tunney
Act public comment phase of the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial settlement.
While there are many flaws the the recommended remedies, I am particularly
concerned because they appear to be insufficient to prevent Microsoft from
continuing to use technical details to support anti-competitive practices.
The definitions of terms such as ``API'', which Microsoft is
required to disclose, is vague enough that they would not necessarily have
to disclose all important APIs to competing software vendors. Microsoft
could also continue its long history of changing APIs without suitable
notice or documentation, effectively redering third-party software non-
functional.
Overall, as one of the public that is supposed to be protected from the
monopolistic practices of Microsoft, I am not satisfied that my interests
will be protected by this agreement.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Techentin
1846 36th Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
MTC-00023771
From: Scott Boland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
As I write these comments on a MicroSoft OS, using MicroSoft's mail client,
sending it most likely to a MicroSoft Server. All I can think is how our
Justice Department has failed us.
I have been a professional in the computer field my entire career. I have
grown up with the machines that preceeded the PC of today. There used to be
TV commercials where different makers would hype ease of use, competive
price, or peerless features. Today we get flying people and feel good
music.
[[Page 27374]]
Competition for the OS in the PC market is currently dead, and the
agreement I have seen sees fit to bury the corpse out of sight where it
won't stink things up. The biggest profitable competitor today for market
share is the older copies of Microsoft's OS.
The miserly places the market is --not-- controlled by Microsoft
are in the embedded markets, graphics houses, schools, and utility servers.
The agreement, as structured, would further the control of Microsoft into
these arenas without returning any notable benefit to the public at large.
The wording is such that the competitor in the utility and embedded market,
Linux, would no longer be allowed even an attempt at interoperation. The
schools, a traditional stronghold of Apple, would be assigned equipment
requiring Microsoft contracts from this time forth. The graphic houses,
already feeling preasure to conform to the MicroSoft PC, may find the
company declaring software makers ``dubious'' and therefore
remove the little cross platform software still made by the Seattle giant.
Only those companies willing to pay MicroSoft in exclusive and secret
contracts will be allowed to view holy writ on how to interface with these
systems.
A monopolist who abuses his abilities in the marketplace must not be given
greater control over their product, but less. Microsoft should not be the
one who chooses who will be allowed to see their documentation for purposes
of compatibility. Microsoft must not be the one deciding who is a
`valid' competitor. Microsoft should not be allowed secrecy and
unknowable agreements tying OEMs and contractors to their aprons. The only
way to spur more competition is to give others advantages to overcome the
inertia being built up by the one company.
To that end, I would suggest making all contracts made by Microsoft be
visible to the general public after one year's time. I would suggest that
sales of the OS and Applications be based on fixed prices to all users, be
they OEM, retail, or school to prevent further market manipulation. Due to
the destruction of the browser competitor, the current Microsoft browser
code should have all interfaces and API's released to the general public
that was damaged by the removal of competition. At the furthest end of the
spectrum, should they not abide by the court, they should lose the
protections of copyright over the materials they have already released to
increase the level of competition from the only real alternative, the
previously sold copies of Microsoft software!
I am forced to work with and for the companies cooperating reluctantly with
Microsoft every day. Currently I am now laid off due in part to my multi-
platform skills no longer being needed by the majority of industries.
Corporations are not ethical. They do not restrict themselves unless forced
to. Every previous agreement with this company has been subverted. It is a
travesty of justice to reward them with the settlement currently on the
table.
--Charles Scott Boland
--BA Computer Science, System Administrator and Software Development
QA
MTC-00023772
From: Daniel Gowans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Name: Daniel R. Gowans, Fort Collins, Colorado; Design Engineer, Agilent
Technologies
MTC-00023773
From: David Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed Final
Judgement against Microsoft. The most disturbing parts of the proposed
Final Judgement are as follows:
1) Microsoft can refuse to release critical information to open software
projects on the sole basis that they do not meet Microsoft's definition of
a viable business. The closest thing to competition Microsoft has are
several open source projects/groups such as Apache, SAMBA, and Linux, yet
these groups can be denied access to the API's. In other words, those who
can do the most good for consumers with the API's will be denied access to
them.
2) There are no provisions for financial penalties in the proposed Final
Judgement.
3) Too much hinges on the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware.''
Microsoft has a tendency to make middleware part of their OS, thus making
it OS software, not middleware. I believe that Microsoft will accelerate
their tendency to move softare into the core OS so that they will not be
subject to the stipulations of the Proposed Final Judgement.
4) There are insufficient guards against Microsoft eliminating competition
in newer markets such as Media Players and handheld devices. Competition is
still alive and well in these markets and the DOJ needs to stop Microsoft's
predatory practices before these new markets suffer the same fate as the
consumer OS and browser markets.
David Clark
MTC-00023774
From: Troy Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Time is running out to comment on this case, so I'll be quick rather than
eloquent. In short, though, the proposed settlement: Does not punish
Microsoft enough for their innovation-stifling practices; does not
guarantee in strong enough language that competitors will be allowed to
compete on an even a somewhat level field; does not spell out in serious
and clear terms penalties for further Microsoft violations.
It is important that the spirit of any judgement be enforced with teeth.
Microsoft has in the past shown the willingness and ability to use their
tremendous resources to find and exploit any available loophole. In
particular, I'm concerned that section III:E, the licensing of network
protocols, be enforced in a way realistic and useful to competitors. I use
Linux, my girlfriend uses Windows. The Samba Project allows us to share
files and collaborate in our work. It's been my experience that Samba
fileservers can run on cheaper hardware and with more reliability then, say
Windows NT or 2000. If the network protocols are sufficiently obfusated by
Microsoft, then businesses and individuals will be *forced* to use a MS
operating system to interoperate with other Windows users. On a related
note, MS uses the spectre of software patents to steer developers away from
the creation of competing products. After all, what's the use of writing
something useful if a core protocol can later be patented? Force Microsoft
to come clean with their patent intentions (no more indefinite threats) so
that developers can get back to work.
I'm currently shopping for a new notebook computer. It is difficult to find
a quality, brand name machine without Microsoft windows preinstalled, often
with a slew of Windows applications. As a Linux user, I do not which to pay
for a bevy of software for which I have no use.
III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment is a step in the right direction,
but should be amended to read: (see ``c'') 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;''
Finally, in judge in 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft found that ``Caldera
has presented sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged were
part of an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' In my opinion, DR-
DOS was superior in several ways to MS-DOS yet was not allowed to compete.
Years of such violations, and toothless penalties allow Microsoft to
continue to laugh at fair practice and gouge the personal user and business
alike. They have some terrific software, but so do many others and it *must
be* allowed to flourish.
Thank you for your effort and time on this case.
-troy
MTC-00023775
From: cdbh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to let you know that I believe the government should settle
with Microsoft as quickly as possible. Microsoft has exercised extreme
diligence in preserving the compatibility of its older products while
introducing newer products. This has saved consumers countless, countless
dollars and headaches. Although Microsoft gains from this through
maintaining its customer base, it is such a great service to the public
that Microsoft should be rewarded rather than punished. Also, it is BAD for
the stock market, the public and the US economy at large to have
Microsoft's stock continually take a beating. Microsoft's enemies see that
Microsoft is vulnerable and they leap into the fray. Enough is enough! Put
a halt to all the attacks and the nonsense. Settle with Microsoft as
quickly as possible. Let the country move on!!
MTC-00023776
From: Cherry Sowder
[[Page 27375]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Break that evil monopoly up their past performance up to and including
their behavior in court only proves that they can not be trusted to act in
the best interests of the consumer.
MTC-00023777
From: bleak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Another AOL suit? Will this ever end. It is time to get the MSFT settlement
done and get the company out of court. My retirement is tied to the MSFT
shares I purschased over the years, not the federal government, and I need
MSFT to be free to pursue its software business. The settlement benefits
all parties. How is the gvt. protecting me from MSFT? I still haven't
figured that one out. Anyway I hope my little plea won't go unnoticed. Let
the settlement proceed.
Bob Bleakley,
Tarpon Springs, Fl.
MTC-00023778
From: Daniel Gowans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in United States vs. Microsoft. I
feel that it is premature and doesn't deal with the problem Microsoft is
causing in the software market. Their monopolistic activities are being
allowed to continue on many levels including API secrecy and undisclosed
standards.
Daniel Gowans
Fort Collins, Colorado
MTC-00023779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This may be my second e-mail on this topic, but, if so, I did not realize
that the Tunny Act allowed public comment which might actually be read by
Judge Kollar-Kotelly. I would like the Judge to know that I am strongly
opposed to the proposed settlement. An unelected administration has joined
with a vicious monopolist to anoint a new tyranny. The ``pre-
load'' agreements, which require a percentage of Microsoft operating
systems to be installed on new computers, seems to me to be a per-se
violation of the anti-trust law. The destruction of Netscape by predatory
pricing (giving away Internet Explorer) and restricting access to
distribution channels is an historic and remarkable example of the exercise
of monopoly power. These, in my opinion, are the two most egregious
examples, but I am sure there are hundreds more. In my own case, I believe
I have been harmed by being forced to purchase inferior software at
inflated prices and to purchase and use inferior computers at similarly
inflated prices. Software which I had invested time and effort to learn was
sabotaged by Microsoft, I refer specifically to WordPerfect. The
inferiority of Microsoft software is dramatically demonstrated by the
numerous ``virusus'' which impair the operation of the internet.
As another personal example, I acquired a ``Certified Microsoft
Professional'' certificate for ``Windows NT in the
enterprise'', which turned out to be a pile of complete schlock. After
a great deal of time and effort, and expense of over $2,000, I was taught
very little about computer networking, but there was a great deal of
Microsoft promotional material. After I learned more about computer
networks (no thanks to Microsoft), I really felt cheated. Only a very
powerful and completely arrogant, manipulative, and ruthless monoply could
pull off the crap that Microsoft has gotten away with. In short, Microsoft
is, in my opinion, a criminal enterprise that deserves to have the book
thrown at them. Instead, I consider the prospect of the judicially created
administration in alliance with a judicially sanctioned corporate lord of
computing. I respectfully request that the court reject the settlement,
prevent a continuation of this destructive monopoly, and impose strict
penalties on Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCormick
MTC-00023780
From: Jerry (038) Ginger Bateman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
Sirs,
It would be good for country and technology in general to settle this and
get it behind us. I think that Microsoft has suffered enough, and we do not
need another Enron collapse to do more damage to our country and Its
economy.
Gerald Bateman,
3816 16th ST.,
Lewiston, Idaho 83501
MTC-00023781
From: Anthony Marola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My major problem with the settlement as it stands, is the lack of any
significant enforcement mechanism. I think most people that have followed
this case definitely feel that MS made anti-competitive practices part of
their business plan, yet will they stop this in the absence of any true
sanctions against them?
MTC-00023782
From: Ed Lancki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56pm
Subject: Freedom or Microsoft?
For over a decade, Sadam Hussein has manipulated the people of Iraq for his
benefit. He has systematically snuffed out any traces of opposition, and
persistently pushes against the legal limits placed on him by the civilized
world. But little by little, he is winning. Today it can be said that the
Iraqi people are little more than slaves to Sadam.
During that same decade, Microsoft has been skillfully manipulating the
information industry for its benfit. Microsoft has systematically snuffed
out any traces of competition, and persistently pushes against the limits
placed on it by the laws of our country. But little by little, Microsoft is
winning, and some day it will control how we do almost everything. We will
be little more than Microsoft's slaves.
Any people who refuse to resist such tyrannies deserve their fate.
Ed Lancki
MTC-00023783
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55pm
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 Parker
5313 Angelina Avenue
Carmichael, CA 95608-3603
MTC-00023784
From: John Richeson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a small business owner in Tampa, FL. I urge you to quit wasting the
taxpayers money by dragging out the Microsoft case any further! The
attorneys seem to once again be the profiteers here. I also strongly
disagree with AOL's suit against Microsoft. It is simply unjustified.
Anyone who has been using computers for any length of time knows that AOL
has bullied itself in the area of dominating Instant Messaging. They are
just being overly mean and aggressive as usual. They, as a company, have
not helped consumers but have hindered them. Microsoft, on the other hand,
has contributed much to our society and world in the form of dozens and
dozens of innovative products which have helped consumers the world over.
Do not destroy this great American company which is an example of
innovation and the American spirit. Please stay out of our lives and leave
Microsoft alone. Let us decide which products we like and do not like.
Netscape was lousy compared to IE. Simple as that. Netscape lost the
competition and are sore losers. Thank God Microsoft improved the browsing
experience and gave it to us for free. How can this be bad? Only the
government can find evil in something that is free and easy to use. If you
destroy Microsoft (which appears to be your goal)
[[Page 27376]]
you will be destroying part of the heart of this great country. And it will
cost us consumers billions in the future.
John Richeson
President
Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc.
MTC-00023785
From: www.bonvidax2@aol@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55pm
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,
David Nathanson
5310 Oak Park Ave.
Encino, CA 91316-2626
MTC-00023786
From: Abhishek Agarwal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement is more than fair!
Dear Sir/Madam,
This email is in support for the fairness of the Microsoft settlement with
the DOJ in the anti-trust case. I strongly feel that Microsoft, in the
interests of putting all this litigation behind, has actually agreed to
some points which it needn't have agreed to, thus saving the company as
well as the state huge legal expenses (which can be better spent, I am
sure, in development efforts). Inspite of that, the remaining 9 states and
some of Microsoft's competitors are hell bent on trying to hamper the
company's working and strangle its efforts to innovate.
In my humble opinion, these troubled times call for a boost to the
companies that are willing to take risk and innovate (as Microsoft has
amply demonstrated with its awesome .Net push). Its Windows XP release late
last year may be the single biggest reason for the economy coming out of
its slump. The least it should be allowed to do is continue to help the
economy as it has been doing.
Sincereley,
Abhishek
MTC-00023787
From: Diesel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Microsoft has gotten to the position it now enjoys through a little luck,
massively copying other people's or companies ideas, and/or outright buying
them. The proposed settlement will do nothing to break the stranglehold
Microsoft has on the operating system market, nor will it allow other
companies to compete fairly.
MTC-00023788
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:55pm
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,
T. Trigg Lupher
9915 Kleppel Rd.
Tomball, TX 77375-3201
MTC-00023789
From: drbob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Microsoft
I have been using your products for the past several years, ever since I
got a computer. I will admit that I did use Netscape at first mainly
because my son had it in the computer when he gave it to me. I now use only
and have been using only Outlook express and Internet Explorer. I am well
pleased. I have found that by using Microsoft I find that other software
works best, Thank you for an excellent product, I am new with computers,
and being 72 yrs old I find your products fit the bill and easly learned.
In my own opinion this court battle going on is wrong. It seems to me that
by allowing suits of this nature it will surely curtail others from coming
forward with new technology for fear of finding them selves in court
All the best and may God continue to Bless your and your company.
Bob Thompson
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]
``No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Congress is in
session''
MTC-00023790
From: Evan Flink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I have followed the Microsoft case for some time hoping to see redress of
the wrongs this company has done since the days when their informal
corporate slogan was ``Our job's not done ``til Lotus won't
run''. The current PFJ is so weak as to make a mockery of the Federal
Justice System. Do not allow Political democracy has been overthrown by
corporate tyranny. Serve the public trust & revise the PFJ to make it a
potent weapon in the arsenal of anti-trust law.
Sincerely,
Evan Flink
Santa Rosa, CA
MTC-00023791
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56pm
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,
c scarmeas
834 stevens st
lowell, MA 01851
MTC-00023792
From: Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it might concern,
I'm an Information Technologies Engineer, with more than 6 years of
experience in IT, now working as a Test Engineer in a Quality Assurance
team. I think that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust Case
is a bad idea. Please reconsider your position.
I have co-signed and I endorse the open letter that Mr. Dan Kegel has
posted on the Internet here:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Mr. Kegel points it nicely:
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).
The current proposed settlement, does not seek to unfetter nothing. It is
uncapable of terminating illegal monopoly practices. It
[[Page 27377]]
does not deny Microsoft Corp. the fruits of its statutory violation. And it
does not ensure that Microsoft Corp. will end its current illegal
practices. For example, some ways that could enforce Microsoft Corp. to end
its illegal monopolistic practices would be:
--Make open and public the documentation that specifies Microsoft
Corp.'s file formats, like MS-Word, MS-Excel... Make open and public the
specifications of actual and future file formats (when available). This
will serve to open the market to competing products. The consumer will have
a selection.
--Disclose MS-Windows API that will make possible for competing
products to use programs designed for MS-Windows. This way, ``MS-
Windows compatible'' Operating Systems could be presented as a real
choice to the consummer. --Mandate Microsoft Corp. to do not
discriminate (in their licenses or wherever) against competing technologies
or products. For example, nowadays, their ``licenses'' forbid to
use MS-Windows components in conjunction with Microsoft Corp's technology
competitors. Yes, with their licenses, you cannot use MS-Windows Media
without MS-Windows, when it is technically possible to do so using the
emulator ``WINE'' under Linux (quoting their license: ``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)'').
Well, there's more and in more depth at Mr. Kegel's website.
Yours sincerely,
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
Chapel Hill, NC 24514
QA Test Engineer,
IT Professional, Member of IEEE--Computer Society
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023793
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58pm
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,
Marian Kroll
5581 Lantern Grove Lane
Roseville, CA 95747
MTC-00023794
From: me
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
According to everything that I have read on this subject for the past few
years and the terms of the settlement reached between the Justice
Department and Microsoft it is my beleive that the case should be settled
now.
The rest of the states that do not want to settle should stop playing games
with tax payers money. Supposing that Microsoft really over charged me for
a product, (which considering how good these products are, I seriously
doubt that they did) a couple of dollars of refund is not going to make a
difference in my life or anyone elses for that matter. The expense in tax
payers money in a long drawn out case will probably offset any benefit.
``The people'' are really the ones being hurt by this case. I
believe that this case has precipitated a series of down turns in the high
tech sector fueled by fear of how badly is the goverment going to hurt
Microsoft. This has had a cascading effect in a other sectors of the
market. Many 401k, and retirement funds, that had Microsoft in their
investment portfolios have been seriously hurt by this case. Now, many
people who were going to retire at 65 years of age can't, or they will have
to do it on much less money.
Sincerely, I like many other people never thought that this case was really
about protecting the people but about protecting a few companies who could
not or would not compete.
Thank you,
Juan C. Torres
MTC-00023795
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am quite annoyed about the Microsoft case. I am a senior citizen who is
learning computer language daily and greatly admire innovation and
progress. It would not be plausible for Microsoft to surrender their codes.
That is the same as asking KFC to disclose their recipes. I feel Microsoft
is on a fast train of entreprenual and innovative ideas for the public good
at a reasonable price. There are some who cannot measure up to the fast
train so they are crying ``foul.'' This is not fair to hamper
progress. If you can't stay on the train, get off and follow!!!! It is time
to get off of Microsoft's back and wallet. Please leave this wonderful
company alone.
Sincerely,
Virginia Fodi,
St. Augustine, Fl.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023796
From: Peter Whinnery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:58pm
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.
Peter Whinnery
Lansdowne, PA
MTC-00023797
From: Robert Bickart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are hoping the Microsoft case can be settled quickly. We are concerned
that the settlement will include changes in Microsoft software that will
make PC's more difficult to use. It appears to us that many of the remedies
proposed by Microsoft's competitors would do just that.
Robert & Mary Bickart
Haines City, Fl
MTC-00023798
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:00am
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,
Billie Nelson
[[Page 27378]]
717 Mt. Adams Ave.
Boardman., OR 97818-9720
MTC-00023800
From: dick allan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Come on you guys, this one from M$ doesn't cut it either. Since when does
the criminal get to call the remedy?
MTC-00023802
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I don't like the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Rather than addressing
Microsoft's anti competitive behavior, I believe it actually helps them to
further strengthen their monopoly by gaining a bigger foothold in the
public schools.
I would like to see a settlement that will make it easier for software
companies to compete with Microsoft so that consumers such as myself can
enjoy tangible benefits, such as improvements in security, better inter
operability with other software, or simply lower prices.
My belief is that requiring Microsoft to publish detailed specifications of
file formats, communication protocols, and programming interfaces would
allow software companies to write inter operable software which would then
result in meaningful, realistic, long term competition in the personal
computer software industry.
Thank you for allowing me to email my comments.
Mike Wright
1050 Meadowlark Dr.
Enon, OH 45323
MTC-00023803
From: David A. Hasan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:59pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
This is a comment pertaining to proposed settlement of the U.S. v.
Microsoft antitrust case.
The proposed settlement now before the court falls far short of providing
the kinds of remedies that are needed (1) to punish the anti-competitive
practices of which Microsoft has been found guilty and (2) to discourage
future anti-competitive behavior by the company. Indeed, the settlement as
proposed gives Microsoft a green light to proceed in the future as it has
in the past. This is particularly dangerous for the health and viability of
our technology-driven nation in which individual innovation has been shown
to fuel progress. The future health of our economy is at stake. A decision
to settle the case would lead to dominance by Microsoft in increasingly
many areas of computing and related fields, driving out competition and
stifling innovation.
We need strongly drawn structural or behavior remedies which have
substance. The proposed settlement provides neither. I strongly urge you to
reject it.
David A. Hasan
[email protected]
4701 Monterey Oaks Blvd., #1114
Austin, TX 78749
MTC-00023804
From: Lance Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not let Microsoft get away with unfair business practices......I
want a choice!!!
Lance Smith
115 Shepard Way
Newnan, GA 30265
(770) 310-4042
MTC-00023805
From: Jerry Rowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am concerned that the Microsoft settlement rendered will be too mild to
be a remedy at all. I firmly believe that the federal govnerment has the
right to regulate Microsoft under tha Constitution since they do business
outside the state of Washington.
I have personally been affected by Micorsoft's monopoly since the days of
DOS. At one time I attempted to purchase a computer with ``DRDos
6.0'', a competing version of an operationg system. However the
computer manufacturer admitted to me that they could not provide it because
Microsoft would force them out of business if they sold just a single copy
of DRDos with a computer instead of Microsoft's MSDOS.
And it continues today, such that Microsoft makes it nearly impossible for
the average person to purchase a computer without Microsoft software. I
fear that without severe restraint, Microsoft will infiltrate its monopoly
throughout the US economy and become impossible to restrain, and the
quality and price will become disadvantageous to the user.
I work in the computer support industry full time as a server and
workstation support expert, and have much experience in these matters. I
just read a very good article by Judge Bork, and feel he covers the subject
well when he said:
[http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/4020/1/]
``The end game, of course, is as the end game always is in such
situations: unhindered, Microsoft would, its monopoly not just established
but enshrined, begin to get rid of its own people, and reduce the utility
of its products, and charge more for them, because what other choice would
we have? The monopolist, absent competition, has no reason to strive for
excellence. Oops, innovation.''
``Again, Microsoft moving on the Internet has the potential of locking
us out. The only reason they haven't done this yet is that their products
are so shoddy and unsecure that they've failed--the company has
overreached. It is unlikely to make the same mistake next time.''
``All that is at stake is our freedom, in a real, down-to-earth,
palpable sense of the word. Which is something that has meaning to all of
us, none more than to those of a conservative bent, who did after all in
their strict constructionist way go to so much trouble, lose so much
treasure, and shed so much of their own blood in the course of inventing
the idea of individual freedom 225 years ago.''
Thanks for your attention to these matters.
Jerry L. Rowe
Marion, Indiana.
[email protected]
MTC-00023806
From: David Olegar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft
Restore competition to the software industry. Break up Microsoft.
MTC-00023807
From: Richard Bargiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:09am
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,
Ryszard Bargiel
MTC-00023808
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea!!!
Thank you for your time.
Jansen
MTC-00023809
From: UncleCal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was told this email box is dedicated to soliciting the public's opinion
on the settlement for the Microsoft Anti-Trust
[[Page 27379]]
lawsuit. If that is true, I would like to offer this:
If Microsoft is guilty of using monopolistic practices to promote their
products and their OS, they should be required to develop their product
suite (including development languages) on three alternate platforms (OS's)
for the next ten years. If this mailbox is for some other purpose, please
excuse the interruption.
David Meixner
Armada, Michigan
MTC-00023810
From: Peter Rinehart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:10am
Subject: my comment on the Microsoft Antitrust case
To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Sirs,
I wish to provide my opinions on the current Microsoft antitrust case. Let
me begin by saying that I am also a co-signer of Dan Kegel's e-mail, and
that I agree wholeheartedly with the points he raises in it. I would like
to add that it is imperative that the settlement to this case be thorough
and binding enough to prevent Microsoft from expanding their already
extensive monopoly on personal computer operating systems to other aspects
of computing. Microsoft's products have proven, time and again, to be
insecure and a popular target for various attacks. The company does not see
this as a problem for their software engineers, however, but for their
public relations department. They have not shown any significant interest
in improving their software in order to prevent problems, rather, they are
only interested in stopping problems after they affect enough users.
How could the personal computer market come to be dominated by one poor
product being procuded by an apathetic company? Because the natural market
forces were prevented from correcting this problem. Microsoft enjoys the
monopoly it has only because it has constantly sought to protect its
business by any means necessary, most of which have proven to be unfair and
anticompetitive. I believe that if companies and individual users had a
truly fair choice in which operating system to use, Windows would not have
nearly the market share it does now. I realize that creating a level
playing field at this point is all but impossible; Windows is here and so
many people use it that it will be here for a long time, despite its many
flaws. However, now is the time to act to ensure that this situation does
not get worse. As Dan Kegel states, the current proposed settlement does a
poor job of preventing Microsoft from continuing to engage in
anticompetitive behavior in the near future, and therefore should be
revised or replaced with something more appropriate.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Peter Rinehart
MTC-00023811
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:11am
Subject: my personal view on the ms vs doj case
Dear Sir / Madam
On the face of it, it would appear that my view on this matter is
irrelevant; I am after all a British citizen living in New Zealand, half-a-
world away from your great nation.
However your decision in the matter of the Microsoft will affect my life
deeply. I am a senior IT professional, working with Microsoft products
daily. In short my very living will be affected by your decision. The
world, and I await with baited breath what impact this will have on our
lives.
It is under such circumstances that I offer my humble opinion:
My summarisation is this, that it would appear to be a decision of the
issue of ``freedom'', how much ``freedom'' should a
corporation be allowed vs. the freedom of the public to enjoy goods and
services at a competitive price. In fact it would appear that the entire
issue is summed in the above fashion. Most people today believe that
``I can do whatever I like, pursuing what ever goals I determine to be
to my best interest, SO LONG as I respect the rights of others and do not
impinge on their right to do the same.'' It is that above view, which
I find utterly abhorrent. I propose that the belief that your great
forefathers held such a view is a lie, and a dangerous lie designed to
steal your freedom from right underneath you. If this issue (and all the
similar arguments like it) are decided based on the merits of who has
``which freedoms to do what'', then the end result will be
incorrect and self-serving, no matter how noble your aims. If entities such
as governments, businesses, organisations and ultimately people, really
believe that they have a ``right'' to follow their own desires,
without hurting others, they will, given enough time, destroy everything
around themselves.
Like a horrible Midas curse, it is not possible to gain your own goals
without affecting others. The pursuit of self, at all costs is disgusting.
The dangerous lie that it is possible to peruse self, without impinging on
others is a falsehood. No man is an island, all decisions involve costs.
Any decision based on the ``faintly'' held notion that it is
permissible to pursue your own goals as ``long as you don't hurt
others'' will produce a result that is a real evil in itself.
I urge you to consider your forefather's real aims and goals in promoting
liberty, not one of ``SELF'' but rather ``OTHERS
FIRST''. If you are proud of your heritage you will put others first,
and demand of both the plaintiff and the defendant that they show how they
are putting ``OTHERS FIRST''.
The result will be a judgement based on the activities of both parties,
designed to show whether self-interest or others-interest was the goal. It
is obvious then that by upholding the freedoms of both parties, both will
suffer equally. If both parties are forced to place the other party first,
the result will be a correct settlement, designed to uphold the other's
rights. If the ``people'' are willing to allow Microsoft the
right to ``practice business'', then Microsoft must allow the
``people'' the right to make their own livings. (I imagine the
issue of forcing OEM vendors to pre-install windows will be shown for the
foul business practice it is, self-serving and abhorrent.)
Self-first always results in loss of freedom, never the promotion of
freedom. It is your own forefathers whom taught their children to follow
the ways of the man that first promoted the idea of ``Others
First'', en-masse to the public. He was Jesus. Parents often
paraphrase his teachings like this ``Treat others as you would have
them treat you.'' He actually said, ?Love the Lord your God with all
your heart, all your mind and all your soul. And love others as yourself.?
May the Lord grant you the wisdom of Solomon as you consider such a weighty
decision.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
Kind regards,
Colin Saunders
PO Box 98817
South Auckland Mail Centre
New Zealand
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023812
From: Guy Sewell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I would like to express my dismay at the proposed Microsoft settlement. I
am particularly concerned over the lack of recognition by the DOJ as to the
importance of not-for-profit organizations to the future of IT, and to the
discrimination against not-for-profit organizations in the proposed
settlement.
Also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why the MS breakup
remedy was not chosen. The company was found guilty of being an illegal
monopoly. The company has a obscene profit margin with no significant
competition in either the OS market or the office suite market, how can
this not be detrimental to consumers or competitors? It has a greater % of
total market than AT&T or Standard Oil did. Diversity is a desirable
trait in ecosystems, in societies, and in commerce. Break up Microsoft and
make the the units compete in a free and level market place.
Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D.
President
Sewell Environmental Associates, LLC
MTC-00023813
From: John Holstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is an extremely bad idea. Microsoft
has ridden rough-shod over the Computer and Computer Software Industry for
too long.
Out of the hundreds of complaints I could complain about concerning
Microsoft, from their inability to provide a secure OS, out of the box, to
their lack of effort in patching existing software for known bugs, the
basis of my ``problem'' with the way they do things
[[Page 27380]]
is their effort to set and/or change existing standards. These standard
practices (RFC's ``Request for Comments'') that computer
professionals go by when installing, administrating and developing new
software are the basis for our everyday lives. Microsoft has the audacity
to try and change these standards to suit their needs, at any given time,
seemingly without regard to their customers ``computer well
being''.
Microsoft will continue to pull the wool over the eyes of people that don't
know any better. We need to help protect the end users that don't have the
ability to understand the ``behind the scenes'' actions that take
place. I know, I understand, and I am not a fan of what Microsoft has done
to the industry. Allowing it to continue will only hinder future
developments.
John Holstein,
Cotse Helpdesk/Support
MTC-00023814
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am just plain amazed that our system condones the predatory practices of
companies like Microsoft, what a tangled web we weave.
bill shockey
MTC-00023815
From: Frank Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16am
Subject: The Microsoft monopoly.
Microsoft is a monopoly.
At almost any time Microsoft can push its choice on any of its large
customers such as Dell or Gateway, and strong-arm hardware suppliers like
Intel, or give away free software until competition is eliminated. These
items have been demonstrated in the find of facts. How to control or limit
such power is the question. There are three choices, break up, financial
penalty, and auditing of business practices.
Break Up. The Windows operating system is worthless without the Office
Suite (Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint). MICROSOFT successfully used
the threat of taking away the Office software against Apple Corporation.
Splitting the business along these units makes some sense, but what forces
the Office division to start writing for other OS's. Since Windows already
has the biggest share, satisfying that customer alone is good enough. Just
look at video games, many are Windows only products because they have the
market share and why spend the money to develop for another much smaller
audience. The Office Suite needs to be ported and supported to multiple
OS's to prevent the Windows strangle hold.
Decision: Don't break up the company. Instead require the Office Suite to
be equally support on the Macintosh OS (easy enough since it already is)
and moved also to Linux (this would drive them crazy).
Financial Penalty. How much money would you have to charge MICROSOFT to get
them to care? We are taking cash here not software or hardware give aways.
And if you set the fee based on an independent analysis of the damages
caused to other businesses and consumers, how long would it be tied up in
court?
Decision: Good idea but years of legal battles and huge lawyer fees. Still
for a big enough fine I could live with this. Let AOL battle this one out.
If they win other plaintiffs will come forward.
Audit Business Practices.
1. Standard fees for everyone. Not to say that higher quantities won't give
discounts but no side deals to favor one customer over another. They are a
monopoly; any side deals are just to force other companies to comply.
2. No free or drastically reduced software, without a business plan to
recover the costs that doesn't include elimination of competition and
dominance of market sector, i.e., the free software has to turn a profit
before taking away significant market share from competitors.
3. Relinquish control of desktop. The choice of visible icons and button
are to be configurable by distributors. If Dell wants to have an icon that
launches their web site using Netscape, then MICROSOFT can't say no, or
penalize Dell in any way. Sure MICROSOFT owns the rights to the OS but the
desktop display belongs to the customer.
4. No breaking a competitors software by providing insufficient or
incorrect information to software developers. E.g., MICROSOFT releases a OS
upgrade and company B's software that worked fine under the old OS, and
MICROSOFT did not release the info to the public that would have allowed
company B to release a patch in time.
If you really want to break the Microsoft monopoly, some combination of all
thee should be used until Apple, Linux, OS2, Be, operating system can come
forward with enough market share to resist MICROSOFT deep pockets. -
Frank Fox
MTC-00023816
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Ma'am
I am writing to tell you that I feel the microsoft settlement has been very
poorly decided. It does not appear that this settlement would at all effect
the current state of Microsoft's business practices.
Emerson Mills
MTC-0023817
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:13am
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,
D.Landis Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-1413
MTC-00023818
From: Russell Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi. I object to the proposed settlement because it allows Microsoft to
retain proprietary file formats. These form a barrier to entry for
competing applications--one reason why Microsoft has been able to
sustain its monopoly. Please make sure that Microsoft must document its
file formats!
-russ nelson
http://russnelson.com
The problem with do-gooders
Crynwr sells support for free software PGPok and governments is that they
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. +1 315 268 1925 voice always think the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 +1 315 268 9201 FAX will choose as they would.
MTC-00023819
From: Andy Colligan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
The proponents of an anti-trust suit should have but one goal: The
limitation or reduction of a trust. Cementing a trust's hold on a market is
the antithesis of that goal.
Please do not allow this settlement to become a travesty of justice and
freedom. Please do not expand Microsoft's monopoly though this settlement.
Speaking as someone who has watched the Internet grow, explode, and begin
to mature, I would like to be able to see it become a place that allows
freedom of expression and choice. Speaking as someone who has seen what
computers are truly capable of, I implore you to allow the same freedoms
onto the desktop. Customers should be allowed to choose how they want to
interact with their computer. Currently, Microsoft does not allow that
choice. If they have any say in the matter, they never will. However, you
do have the power to change how Microsoft does business. I ask you to
exercise that power. You may find this message to be silly, but the outcome
of this case is anything but.
Andy Colligan
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00023820
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 27381]]
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,
Robert Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-1413
MTC-00023821
From: John Slomka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Upon reviewing the proposed Microsoft Settlement, I find it to be overly
optimistic and highly inadequate. It is based entirely on Microsoft
willingly complying not only with the letter of the settlement, but the
spirit of resolution. In the past this company has ignored attempts by the
government to curtail it's monopolistic abuses and will in all likelihood
continue to do so. Even if Microsoft did comply with the letter of the
settlement, such compliance would only be a smoke screen for devising ways
to manipulate the technology to leverage their monopoly power in ways not
specifically covered in the agreement, if not altering the technology in
ways to render the settlement unenforceable or irrelevant.
This settlement does nothing to discourage Microsoft from further
anticompetitive and monopolistic practices, but merely states that the
current abuses of monopoly power be discontinued or at least altered. It
does not weaken Microsoft's operating system monopoly, nor does it provide
any true barrier to future abuses of that monopoly.
Sincerely,
John Slomka
MTC-00023822
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16am
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,
Tricia Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-1413
MTC-00023823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:19am
Subject: microsoft settlement
please , in the public interest, proceed with the settlement that is so
badly needed for the U.S. economy and in the interest of the public that is
surely weary of continued competiveness. please , let us get back to
sanity. thank
you
sincerely
Chloe murdock
chloeckm@ Aol.com
MTC-00023824
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16am
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 Cook
1530 Sharon Drive
Yuba City , CA 95993
MTC-00023825
From: csm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As someone who uses Microsoft products as part of his job, and who also
uses products at home that compete with Microsoft products, I would like to
offer the following comments and suggestions regarding the ``proposed
final judgment in United States v. Microsoft''. In general the
settlement described in the ``proposed final judgment'' tries to
prevent the anti-competitive behaviors that Microsoft has used in the area
of (what the settlement calls) ``Middleware Products'' intended
for user interaction with the Internet. I feel it focuses a little too
narrowly on ``Internet-centric'' programs such as browsers and E-
mail agents. In fact, there are probably lost opportunities here for
correcting anti-competitive behaviors in the areas of operating systems,
software development tools and what is euphemistically called ``office
productivity'' software (such as Microsoft's Office suite of
programs). While these types of programs may seem more distant from the
Internet than web browsers, etc., in point of fact almost all of them are
also being upgraded to interoperate with Internet APIs and remote services.
I wish this had been examined in more detail.
However, taking the proposed settlement as written, there are several
changes in wording that I believe would expand the scope of what is being
required where it is overly narrow.
In particular, under Section III.A.2 (hardware licensing):
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;
should be amended to:
2. shipping a Personal Computer with one or more bootable non-Microsoft
Operating System(s) either instead of or in addition to any Windows
Operating System Product;
to ensure that not only can Microsoft not retaliate against a computer
hardware vendor who ships a Personal Computer that dual boots Windows and
some non-Microsoft Operating System, but also that it cannot retaliate
against a vendor who ships a separate line of Personal Computers without
Windows at all, in addition to also shipping Personal Computers that do
have Windows installed. This is particularly important to growth of the
(Open Source) Linux Operating System as an option for businesses.
In section III.D, in addition to ``the APIs and related Documentation
that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows
Operating System Product'', the internal formats of disk files created
by Microsoft products need to be cited as a necessary part of the
``related Documentation'', particularly for the Microsoft Office
products. Microsoft Office is a pillar of the current desktop monopoly. It
is reasonable to ask that ``flat'' files produced by Word, Excel
and other components of the Microsoft Office suite have their internal
layout and format fully documented so that non-Microsoft products can
interoperate with them with full knowledge of any planned changes from one
version of Microsoft Office to the next. This is important because these
files are routinely exchanged via E-mail and other methods of information
exchange over the Internet (for instance, many company Personnel
departments now require resumes and job applications to be E-mailed in
Microsoft Word format). The exceptions to this would be the database file
formats of Microsoft Access (one part of the Microsoft Office suite) and
Microsoft SQL Server (a
[[Page 27382]]
separate product), which should rightfully remain proprietary knowledge.
Section III.J.1 needs to be tightened to provide outside verification that
any denial of disclosure because it ``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'' is justified by the
facts of the matter.
Also III.J.2 appears to provide a loophole for allowing Microsoft to refuse
information to Open Source developers, since it has already disparaged the
``authenticity and viability of'' the Open Source model of doing
business. This loophole must be closed, since Open Source software is one
of the few surviving competitors that Microsoft products face currently.
Definition VI.K.1 should include Microsoft Office among the list of
``Microsoft Middleware Products'', again because it is so
routinely used in document exchange across the Internet.
Thank you,
Paul Connelly
P.O. Box 290
Oakham, MA 01068-0290
(US Citizen)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023826
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:19am
Subject: Mirosoft Settlement
Enough! This suit must end. Microsoft supposedly harmed consumers, well,
I'm a consumer and I've not been harmed. This suit is little more than
``welfare'' for Microsofts'' competitors and another method
for states to get free money. This economically-driven witch hunt has gone
on long enough. End it.
Sincerely,
Elise Tompkins
Sammamish,WA
MTC-00023827
From: Scott Snider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I am a big believer in the free market system and do not believe that
Microsoft is at fault in there business practices. My children and I have
leaned a lot about computers thanks to Microsoft and all there helps and
free software from them. In fact thanks to the openness of Microsoft my
children have leaned HTML, Java and mpeg design for web pages. Am I one
sided maybe I have been with Microsoft in away on computers since the days
of DOS.
I believe that any negative judgment against Microsoft is more something I
would see in a communist country.
Scott Snider
9082 Via Vista Dr
Buena Park, CA 90620
MTC-00023828
From: MightyPete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
On the very day that this ``Deal'' was released to the public
Microsoft blocked all none Microsoft browser from entering the MSN.com web
site saying that they where not compliant and that a upgrade to Internet
Explorer was necessary to view the web pages. Well a check of compliance to
the standard revealed that fully more than 80% of MSN.com pages where not
compliant and that browsers that spoofed the servers into thinking that
they where Internet Explorer could surf the MSN.com web site without any
problems. This happened on the very same day this deal was announced. Are
we learning anything here?
This deal is just plain bad for consumers. Microsoft has learn nothing and
they continue to abuse there monopoly ever chance they get. Enough is
enough. Enforce the law ! They broke it and continue to break it, now why
are not being held accountable? Putting Internet Explorer on Linux is not a
option.
Sincerely
G Conner
MTC-00023829
From: dnp607(a)pacbell.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing under the Tunney Act concerning the proposed Microsoft
Settlement (United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232). I
believe the settlement is unfair, as it will not serve to end Microsoft's
unlawful conduct, and does not adequately penalize Microsoft for it's
unlawful conduct. I have co-signed a petition which details my position in
greater detail, and am writing this to officially note my opinion as
allowed by the Tunney Act.
Thank you very much,
Dan Peknik
MTC-00023830
From: R (038) C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed anti-trust settlement with microsoft is laughable. We might as
well change USA to MSUSA,. Apparently, someone has jumped into bed with
this partner and is promoting this willing mate to a climax of a lifetime.
Please don't make the taxpaying bystander watch and pay for this liaison!
This settlement is not acceptable.
MTC-00023831
From: Carlos Santellanes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The proposed settlement is INSULTING to the word justice. Nothing is going
to change with such a settlement, REAL punishment must be done this time or
else the WHOLE computer industry will suffer.
MTC-00023832
From: Scott Neugroschl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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 submitting this under the Tunney Act, to comment on the Revised
Proposed Final Judgement (RPFJ) in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. I am a
software engineer with 18 years of professional experience, and over 25
years of computer experience. My belief is that the RPFJ does not fully
address the harm caused by Microsoft. Many people, including the Honorable
Robert Bork share this belief (see http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/
opinions/4020/1).
In this letter, I would like to give my overall impressions, and then
address a few specific points within the RPFJ.
First, Microsoft was found guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
As I understand it, the US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the guilty
verdict; they merely threw out Judge Jackson's remedies. The Findings of
Fact still stand. Why, then, is the DOJ essentially conceding this case? Do
all convicted criminals get to negotiate their own punishment for violating
the law?
Second, there are no punitive provisions. Microsoft profited from its
illegal activities. Where is the punishment for the violation of the law?
Why should they be allowed to retain the ``fruit of the poisonous
tree''? To use lay terms, the RPFJ reads almost as if Microsoft were
saying ``We did nothing wrong, and we won't do it again.'' In
addition, Microsoft has shown that mere procedural remedies are
insufficient, as shown by its actions in the light of the 1994 consent
decree.
Now I would like to discuss some specific provisions of the RPFJ. Section
III.I.5 requires any ISV, IHP, IAP, ICP, or OEM (third party) that receives
information on Microsoft APIs and protocols to license back to Microsoft
any IP that they create based upon those APIs and protocols.
At first glance, this appears reasonable. However, Microsoft has a history
of taking such third party information and abusing it, to extend their
hegemony. See Stac Electronics v. Microsoft for an example.
Section III.J.2 allows Microsoft to deny licenses to the APIs and protocols
to any person or entity that does not have a ``reasonable business
need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or
shipping product'' (III.J.2.(b)), or does not meet ``reasonable
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business'' (III.J.2.(c)).
First of all, students, who are obviously not businesses, and do not have
``planned or shipping product'', develop many Open Source
projects. Second, the requirement that Microsoft certify the business model
of its licensees is open to abuse, given Microsoft's official positions on
Open Source software as a business model. See Craig Mundie's comments at
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp,
and Jim Allchin's comments, as reported by CNet at http://
news.com.com/2100-1001-252681.html.
[[Page 27383]]
Section III.J.2.(d) contains yet another onerous provision. It requires any
licensee to agree to ``submit, at its own expense, any computer
program using such APIs, Documentation, or Communication to third-party
verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification
and compliance with Microsoft specifications.''
Again, as stated above, many developers are not businesses, and do not have
the financial resources to pay for such testing.
In summary, I believe the RPFJ is fatally flawed. I have provided some
general comments and three specific comments detailing my reasons for so
believing. I urge the Court to reject this settlement. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Neugroschl
23949 Archwood Street
West Hills, CA 91307
cc:Nini Redway (CA Attorney General's Office)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023833
From: Philip Utley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:25am Re: Anti-competitive collusion between Microsoft
and Corel Corporation
Please find a remedy for the current anti-competitive collusion between
Microsoft and Corel Corporation, an activity which appears to have
eliminated serious competition and given Microsoft a virtual monopoly in
the Apple Macintosh word processing market.
Early this year Microsoft invested US $135 million in shares of financially
troubled Ottawa based Corel, a graphics software company that had purchased
the cross-platform word processing company WordPerfect half a decade
before. Microsoft sold the shares in February 2001 after the US Department
of Justice and Ontario Securities Commission announced an investigation of
the event. Microsoft may seem only to have lost $70 million on the deal
because of stock price deterioration--but in fact it gained Corel as a
business ally. Corel announced immediately it would no longer produce its
graphics and WordPerfect software for Linux, the competing open-source
operating system. Corel agreed to make its products compatible with.NET,
Microsoft's business software line acquired through purchase of Great
Plains.
It had been rumored in 2000 that balance-sheet problems would force Corel
to sell its WordPerfect software to large companies like Adobe or IBM,
which had the management skills and capital for a potential restoration of
WordPerfect to its position as the most widely purchased word processing
program-- one which functioned on both Microsoft and Apple computers.
Corel now continues to upgrade WordPerfect for Windows--still the best
word processing software, but now purchased much less frequently than
Microsoft's klunky Word. That is because businessmen can still remember the
early years when Windows was replacing DOS as the most popular PC operating
system: Microsoft withheld enough information about source codes to keep
WordPerfect programmers from easily developing their Windows version.
WordPerfect lost market share because it was slow to develop a good Windows
version that did not crash regularly. But within a couple years WordPerfect
for both platforms was again the best: now relatively crash-proof and as
user-friendly as ever, with, for example, superior table,
macro,``Reveal Codes'' and outlining functions.
In April 2001, Corel announced that it would make no effort to develop
WordPerfect for OS X, Apple's new Unix-based operating system. Corel could
have converted the old WordPerfect 3.5e for Macintosh OS 8 and 9, still the
best word processing software for the Mac. It could also have done
something even easier: ``porting'' its already developed
WordPerfect for Unix-based Linux to Unix-based OS X. It could have made
money by licensing development rights. The ostensible reason: Corel did not
think there was a market for a Mac WordPerfect program. Corel had no way of
knowing this because it had not advertised, upgraded or supported
WordPerfect 3.5e for about six years. It had ignored communications from
users imploring it to develop the program. In the year or two prior to
April 2001, it had provided the program as a free internet download, but
now it withdrew the download from the internet and pressured other sites to
withdraw the software to which it still held the copyright.
In the same April announcement, Corel said it was developing graphics
software for OS X. I am not an expert on graphics, but have read that many
consider its graphics software mediocre in comparison with the extremely
sophisticated products of companies like Adobe. Apparently it rapidly
gained graphics market share because it was quick to develop a working
Windows version of its program when Windows was replacing DOS.
That leaves AppleWorks and Nisus as two good but rudimentary Mac word
processing programs that are still developed, supported and available for
OS X.
Microsoft Word is the third--now the only sophisticated Mac word
processor with ongoing upgrades and support. And it is the only one that is
``cross-platform``--with easy conversion of documents
between Mac and Windows versions.
Thus Microsoft's new-found friendship with Corel allows the killing of
WordPerfect competition in the Macintosh market as well as the Linux
market.
What of the Windows market? That is where Microsoft cannot afford to look
like a monopolist. John D. Rockefeller liked having one or two small
competitors so that he could claim that Standard Oil was not a monopoly.
And Microsoft has been arguing throughout the antitrust case that
Netscape's continued existence proves Microsoft does not monopolize
internet applications on Windows.
If there are to be serious conduct remedies in the current case against
Microsoft, one should be designed to assure the preservation of WordPerfect
as cross-platform software.
Philip Utley Ph.D.
203 W. 81st St. #2E
New York NY 10024
1. Originally a private company, WordPerfect was sold to Novell, which sold
it to Corel.
2. Information I use in this article is culled in large part from
[http://www.r8ix.com/lists.html]. It is a Mac WP e-mail users''
group and it has a digest of the e-mails over the years. There are some
internet articles on the events of February-April 2001 at [http://
www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7520.html], [http://www.security-
informer.com/english/crd--corel--440464.html],
[http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010224.html] and [http://
maccentral.macworld.com/news/0102/14.feds.shtml].
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00023834
From: Robert W. Means
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26am
Subject: Comments on the settlement between DOJ and Microsoft
Dear Judge,
It seems to me that AOL, SUN, Oracle and several states are making a
mockery of the legal system by opposing the settlement and pursuing
frivolous lawsuits driven by personal animosities or political
considerations, not economic crimes. You should recognize this fact,
articulate it publicly and try to settle this case before it stretches on
into the next century.
Robert W. Means
MTC-00023835
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
As a retired teacher I've been following the case and especially the
proposed settlement with great interest. Schools need materials, equipment
and software to provide our students with modern tools to meet present
goals. Apple computers were wonderful in the 1980s but they are not
practical when 95% of the business world uses the Windows platform. Time is
essential and the proposed settlement will allow the schools to provide
students with the tools they need now. We can't wait another twenty years
to have this case debated and delayed by additional lawsuits.
I urge you to continue with the original offer so that the next generation
of students will not be another twenty years late.
Sincerely,
Tom Thiesen
8940 Libby Road NE
Olympia, WA 98506
MTC-00023836
From: Bob Horvath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settelment
I have read the settlement agreement, and find no remedy for Microsoft in
that it has finally been acknowledged as a monopoly. In fact, it appears to
me that it give Microsoft the green light to continue their practices. As
specific as it is, they will bend their software and call it something
else, so that it no longer sounds like that which is described. Witness the
calling of Internet Explorer a part of the operating system. I have been in
software for 18 years, and calling a browser a part of the
[[Page 27384]]
operating system has no technical merit. It shows that those making the
legal decisions do not understand the technology. Walk into any Best Buy,
or other electronic store, and see how many items are being offered for
$400 less if you sign up for MSN (Microsoft's Internet service). This must
have cost them a fortune. What are they trying to buy? They don't need any
more software market share. They are trying to buy Internet and make it
impossible for others to play on an even playing field. Their .NET strategy
is another example.
Please consider that there is a whole world of software out there beyond
what comes with the Microsoft shrinkwrap on it. Competition is good,
especially in software where things can change so rapidly. Please
understand that Microsoft is a bully in the software marketplace and needs
to be controlled.
MTC-00023837
From: Bill Vlahos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
I believe that Microsoft has clearly and unlawfully abused its monopoly for
many years and am dismayed that the ``remedies'' discussed so far
are neither appropriate nor will be effective in either punishing or
changing Microsoft's behavior.
Assuming that Microsoft is guilty, which has been proven and re-affirmed in
court, then not only should their behavior change but they should be
punished. There are numerous products and companies which no longer exist
because Microsoft eliminated them. Let me suggest a solution that would not
only meet the goals of the anti-trust case, be relatively easily achieved,
but actually would effect a change.
1. Make the file formats for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint open so that other
companies can make competitive products which would transparently
interoperate with Microsoft's products.
2. Prohibit the Government (U.S. and States) from purchasing any Microsoft
products for a period of time based on how long Microsoft abused their
monopoly. This would punish Microsoft for past abuses while at the same
time provide a waiting market for competing products.
These remedies would certainly hurt Microsoft which is appropriate. They
also would stimulate competition which would be good for consumers.
Bill Vlahos
[email protected]
MTC-00023838
From: Tobias DiPasquale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft to make the next EKG machine
From FCNN (Fake CNN), 01/24/2002:
``In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft Corp. announced that it
would shortly be entering the health-care software market, specifically, it
would write software to run EKG machines initially (called Microsoft
HeartBuddy), and then expand to other critical systems. The specifications
on the machines are not known, but Microsoft claims that EKG machines
running Microsoft HeartBuddy software would experience ``previously
undreamed-of'' performance, such as 40% uptime and only 120 known
security holes upon shipping of the product. There specifications were
agreed upon when they discovered that the average human body can withstand
missing up to 5 heartbeats and not be seriously injured. Quoting Microsoft
CEO Steve Ballmer:
``We figured that as long as it stayed up for most of an 8 hour shift
in a day, it didn't need to do much more than that. I mean, really, who's
gonna notice if it crashes a couple times?''
Microsoft was unable to explain how their product would be beneficial,
given that current EKG technology allows for 100% uptime in almost all
cases, and costs significantly less than HeartBuddy.
Microsoft plans to charge around $100,000 to $150,000 per unit, with
upgrades mandatory every three months. The upgrades will cost around
$75,000 apiece, and will be cryptographically signed by a special digital
signature known only to Microsoft, giving competitors no chance to reclaim
lost market share in this field. Microsoft also plans to seamlessy
integrate it's Office software into HeartBuddy, giving the doctor the
ability to write and print death certificates right on the EKG itself.
In the past, Microsoft's security measures have been cracked fairly easily.
In one such instance, Windows XP's much lauded copyright protection scheme
was broken within hours of the XP launch party, but Microsoft sees this as
a fluke, and not worth comment. Jack Valenti of the RIAA, however, had this
to say:
``We're paying Microsoft quite a bit of money to keep our material
secure, and they can't get it done! They can't even keep their own servers
secure!'' (he is referring to the two times Microsoft's network was
cracked by outside hackers, one defacing the Hotmail email service, and the
other stealing the source code to Windows itself)''
Many others are also skeptical about Microsoft's move to enter this market,
saying that their software is not reliable enough and has too many security
holes, citing the IE 6.0 remote take-over vulnerability, or the literally
hundreds of email viruses Microsoft Outlook makes possible, or the many
holes in Microsoft's IIS web server. But Microsoft soothes these nay-sayers
by stating that anyone who makes statements against Microsoft will have
it's product copied by Microsoft and given away free in the next version of
Windows.''
This is a spoof of a real news article, but if you allow Microsoft to
continue it's monopoly, this kind of thing is not far off. It will have no
reason to provide quality, competitive products and services, since it will
have government approval to squash it's competition and charge outrageous
prices for substandard goods. Don't allow the Standard Oil of the 21st
century to beat us: rule in the interest of the people.
Sentence Microsoft to a three-way breakup: one company to handle IE, one to
handle Office, and one to handle Windows itself. I know you will do the
right thing. Thank you.
A Hopeful American,
Tobias DiPasquale
[email protected]
MTC-00023839
From: chris wolske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice Representative,
I would like to respond to the Proposed Final Judgement to U.S. v.
Microsoft. There are many aspects of this ruling which I find disturbing,
including the following:
In section III (Prohibited Conduct), section A.2. reads:
[A.2] ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will
boot with more than one Operating System; or''
- this interpretation ignores systems shipped without a Microsoft operating
system, including computers that ship with only Linux or other Free (FSF)
software with Windows compatability software included. An alternative may
read as follows:
``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 ...''
Section VI (Definitions), section U, defines the following:
``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. - this focuses narrowly on the a subset
of the operating systems offered by Microsoft and may be better represented
by:
``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.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Christopher Wolske
MTC-00023840
From: Dawney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
[[Page 27385]]
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 24, 2002
Dear U.S. Department of Justice:
As a member of the public, I would like to add my comments on the Microsoft
Settlement.
If I understand correctly, under the Tunney Act I may submit comments
regarding the Microsoft Settlement documentation. In order to accurately
convey my opinion, I must first clarify that I respectfully but strongly
disagree that Microsoft has had or does have a monopoly in the web browser
industry.
Our local news reported recently that our only local telephone utility
provider is planning to share our personal information, including to whom
we call and how long we stay on the phone line.
Needless to say, the customers are not happy about this and are trying to
get an opt-out option. But if we can't, and it is legal for the company to
share our private information against our will, then we have no alternative
but to continue using this utility company or to discontinue the use of our
local phone service because there is no other option. THAT is a monopoly.
I am easily able to obtain and use Netscape or Internet Explorer or AOL if
I so choose. These three web browsers are easy to find and affordable if
not free. Microsoft has developed a successful operating system (and
application software) that has revolutionized (actually introduced) the
public to the ever-increasing benefits of personal computer use. It was not
long ago that the market of computer users was a minute group limited to
the isolation and dullness of DOS. The creation of Windows has given wings
to the minds of developers and end users. Microsoft has cultivated its
Windows operating system with improvements such as Internet Explorer that
are a benefit to the consumer.
My perspective is that of great appreciation for successful development and
true competition. Microsoft has no more channels of opportunity than any
other company as far as marketing and distribution, unless they've created
their own, which is productive innovation. If Microsoft is successful in
distributing knowledge about its products and creating accessibility, it is
commendable and a plus for consumers.
I've read that it would be too expensive for Netscape to develop its own
competing operating system. Too expensive for whom? Netscape? Consumers? If
having a unique operating system is a desire of Netscape in the development
of its product, then it ought to gather investors, developers, etc., to
enable itself to achieve these developmental goals. Isn't that what most
companies have to do? Microsoft successfully built and developed its
concepts and products, relationships and consumer trust from ground up.
They didn't try to jump on the coat tails of a larger company. Too
expensive for consumers? If my limited knowledge of competition serves me
correctly, then by Netscape building their own code, products and
relationships, it would actually facilitate true competition and even
reduce prices (for consumers).
With that said, out of respect for the authority of the Department of
Justice to pass judgment on whether or not it feels the Sherman Act has
been violated, I acknowledge the decisions that have led to the Microsoft
Settlement. While I do not agree with much of the settlement language, it
takes two sides to reach an agreement. With two sides agreeing to a set of
terms and to be bound by the settlement, I agree that a swift close to this
matter would be of benefit both financially and mentally to the public.
I have been wanting to write this letter for over several weeks but have
felt so strongly on some parts of this case, that I wanted to make sure and
re-read the available public documents, then write with a clear mind and
``cool jets'' so to speak. My main concern when reading the
complaints and settlement information is that of wanting reasonable justice
and closure. I have been concerned foreseeing that Microsoft's competition
would not honor the authority of the DOJ nor the binding settlement
language; but rather, they would continue to pursue litigation after
litigation. And as of January 23, 2002, unfortunately this foresight seems
to be correct in reading that AOL is again suing Microsoft.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the public and our economy to
strictly and completely enforce all terms of the settlement, and then
ensure that Microsoft's competition is not allowed to make a mockery of the
system by misinterpreting their role (if any) in the agreement. This kind
of abuse would be a waste of money and time (which would stifle would-be
creative developments for consumers). I also believe it would be
detrimental to consumer confidence.
The decisions have been made. Let the DOJ and Microsoft carry out their
parts of the agreement. Let the competing companies build their products to
the best of their available resources (as with all businesses). Then let
the consumers be free to choose their products and services.
Thank you greatly for your time.
Dawn Reagan
1765 Tullis Dr.
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815
(208) 665-2317
[email protected]
MTC-00023841
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31am
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,
Christine Dowd
1835 Portola Road
WOODSIDE, CA 94062
MTC-00023842
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:32am
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,
LaDon Moore
103 Ridge CT
Centerville, GA 31028
MTC-00023843
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33am
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,
Clayton Ford
2942 Mallorca Ln
Davis, CA 95616
MTC-00023844
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27386]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:34am
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,
Jay Talsma
534 Del Vista Dr.
Bloomington, IL 61704-7654
MTC-00023845
From: nathaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sir/miss,
I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed settlement with
Microsoft Corporation is not yet satisfactory. Microsoft has and continues
to display a willingness to do whatever it takes, undehand or otherwise, to
utterly extinguish all competition. While the sole ethic of a successful
comapny is indeed to make profit, and while having not one competitor would
certainly enable Microsoft to achieve this goal, it is most certainly -not-
ethical with concern for a free marketplace based on satisfying the
consumer through business competition.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Heinrichs
Nathaniel Heinrichs
[email protected]
Security Engineer
[email protected]
Internet Security Systems KK
TEL: +03-5475-6451
Managed Security Services Division
CEL: 090-6479-6295
MTC-00023846
From: Jonathan D. Nolen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly disapprove of the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft Case.
As written, it fails to achieve any meaningful benefit for the software-
using public. It is insufficient to curb Microsoft's use of predatory and
anti-competitive tactics, which have been working against the public good
for two decades. Likewise, it fails to redress the damage that Microsoft
has done to the software industry and the computer-using public at large
during their reign as monopolists.
Please see Dan Kegel's (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html) comments
for further detail on the shortcomings of the proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Nolen
Jonathan D. Nolen
Santa Barbara, CA
mail: [email protected]
MTC-00023847
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:36am
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 HARTWELL
7337 TRADE ST #1155
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
MTC-00023848
From: Ben Lachman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement as it stands does nothing to change the way microsoft will
act in the future. much greater action should be taken.
Ben Lachman
Athens, Ohio
[email protected]
[email protected]
(740)592-6430
MTC-00023849
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:37am
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,
Carol Gillenwater
13250-5th-Ave -SW
Seattle, WA 98146-3201
MTC-00023850
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:09am
Subject: A right to use
It is difficult describe how I fell about the antitrust case against
microsoft. I am unsure at this time how this email will be received. I am a
30 year old Information Technology and Telecommunications engineer working
in South Australia, I have been involved with computers and computing since
I was 15 years old, so I have 30 years experience dealing with computing
issues and operating system.
I am unsure if the American judicial system is allowed to consider opinions
from out side of the USA. However, when you talk about the computer
industry and partially Microsoft any anti-trust suit is not just important
to Americans it has far reaching effects all around the world.
Software defies conventional trade boundaries, a new piece of software can
be all over the world in a matter of weeks and be used by billions of
computer businesses and home users in this time. What Microsoft has
accomplished in it's time as the major operating system is develop the
computer platform to a stage where anyone in the world can use it and use
it effectively.
But it has done this at a cost. The first PC I acquired was an Amstrad 286
at the time windows was not even an OS and DOS was king. Thousands of
companies produced word processing programs land other utilities and the
consumer was able to talk with their wallets. If a piece of software was no
good then they migrated to another and never used that software again.
This is the way it was in the beginning. The free market at it's best. Mac
had a market dominance, it's OS and windows type platform was the easiest
for all users to use. A large number of users used the mac platform instead
of the PC as the PC OS was difficult to use. Then along came windows.
Windows was produced to compete against the Mac OS which made Mac's one of
the most sold computer systems there was. Windows copied a lot of the Mac
features and low an behold a Graphical user interface was available for the
IBM PC. Real competition began in the PC market.
The combination of the IBM PC and the Microsoft windows product won out
over the Mac. Not because it was the better of the two systems they were
both pretty much the same it's just the IBM PC's were cheaper then Macs and
thus market forces won the day.
Microsoft became the main OS of today. This wasn't a problem as Windows
used DOS
[[Page 27387]]
as the basis for it's OS and all the DOS software companies could easily
port their packages to the windows format.
But microsoft wanted more, recognizing their clear advantage due to there
financial, market and marketing dominance they started to develop the
peripheral programs, borrowing ideas from these other companies and going
with the market trend.
The Microsoft OS today could no longer strictly be called an OS. The
operating system of a computer controls the interface between the human and
the computer components and allows programs to talk and control these
components in a managed manner.
Microsoft dose this and so it in a reasonable manner. But it a lot includes
programs which load automatically without the user asking. And as things
like word programs, net surfing programs, picture editing programs are
freely available why go out and by the other superior programs as well the
ones we have may not be the best but they will do. By allowing microsoft to
continue to add programs to there OS that do not have anything to do with
the OS you perpetuate the destruction of superior software and operations
during our time. Microsoft is holding the world in a computing stasis, by
not allowing the best program to be presented to the consumer, developments
are lost and our pool of knowledge shrinks.
At this time microsoft has dominance of the world computer market. They
control 99% of the worlds computers. Their software has proven time and
time again that it is not the best, but it is adequate and why by the
better stuff if the stuff I have works.
I have had several programs that I love to use of the years become useless
because microsoft change small parts of it's code to make it more difficult
for other programs to run under windows. Microsoft at the issuing of a new
OS can decided that the world has to change to suit it's vision. In actual
fact when you think about it Microsoft has more power then the US
government and the US court systems.
Microsoft can make changes that effect the world in radical and dramatic
ways. They can broaden or shrink the differences between the haves and the
have not. This gives them a massive amount of power and ultimate power
corrupts.
The microsoft solution is a difficult one and I do not envy you. The split
up of microsoft will be a blow to the company no doubt. But, I believe they
said that there development divisions (those that produce office and
Internet Explorer) would not be able to work as efficiently as they do now
when they are connected to the OS side of things.
This is definitely true ! However, isn't this what all other companies have
to put up with. Microsoft limited access to their software interfaces to
external companies. Meaning that the internal software development teams
have an unfair advantage when it comes to developing software as they can
use the full set of microsoft OS tools, while other companies can only deal
with half the OS tools or less.
If you can do nothing else you should at least include in the settlement
that MS must release the full Software and interface specs to the MS
Windows OS to allow others to compete on a more level playing field.
Yours
Chris Evans
MTC-00023854
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:37am
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,
Sheryl McNally
14130 Highcroft Drive
Houston, TX 77077-1441
MTC-00023856
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:36am
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,
Jean Payne
501 Fairway Trail
Springfield, TN 37172-4013
MTC-00023857
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:42am
Subject: AOL LAWSUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT
Sir:
I think in my opinion AOL should now spend time to enhance and innovate
their system rather than spending time in the courtroom. It is just the
right thing to do. Time to move on AOL you are hurting the economy of the
United States of America.
MTC-00023858
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For over a year I used Netscape Navigator. Eventually, I decided to try
other browsers-- Internet Explorer and Opera- because I was becoming
frustrated with Navigator's lack of features. I was much happier with
Explorer's flexibility and features, so I removed Navigator.
All three programs were free to the public, but one offered more and
satisfied me more than the other. I also bought a Ford Bronco several years
ago. I was not satisfied with the stereo that came ?bundled? with it, so I
shopped around and bought a better stereo to replace it. The stereo was
much more costly and troublesome to replace than Internet Explorer is to
replace. Cars come bundled with stereos and tires and I can buy different
tires and stereos for my car, just as a computer can come with Windows, Mac
OSX, Linux, etc., but I am still free to choose whatever web browser or
other software I prefer with the operating system of my choice.
Please don't take away our rights or responsibility to choose and decide
for ourselves what products we will use.
Politicians harm consumers when they give unfair advantage to producers who
cannot compete with companies that create better products. Allowing
politicians to interfere with the marketplace and consumer choice is an
uncompetitive and unconstitutional practice.
Sincerely,
Eugene Fortain
5707 Los Alamos Ct.
Santa Rosa, CA 95409 --
MTC-00023859
From: Bob Boothby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Is further litigation on the Microsoft antitrust case going to get us out
of this recession? I don?t think so! I was hopeful when Microsoft and the
Department of Justice reached a settlement back in November, but now it
looks to me like we are in for another round of fruitless litigation. We
have nine state Attorney Generals playing politics and AOL is back in court
with an old complaint that was proven to be unfounded in the current DOJ
lawsuit.
I, Robert, am a Software Engineer. I worked for RCA Computer Systems
Division in the 1960s and Hewlett-Packard from the early
[[Page 27388]]
1970s to the present. From personal experience I can tell you that the
Netscape browser lost its dominant position because it was defect- ridden
and its performance was miserable. The Netscape browser still has a near
monopoly on UNIX workstations and AOL Time Warner & Sun Microsystems
still deliver a defect-ridden browser with miserable performance to that
market.
Microsoft has agreed not to go after computer companies who ship software
that competes with anything in its operating system.
Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against software or hardware
developers who develop or promote software that competes with Windows or
that run on software that competes with Windows.
What else is expected of Microsoft? Let's move on. Let's put an end to the
litigation!
Sincerely,
signed: Iku Boothby
Iku Boothby
signed: Robert Boothby
Robert Boothby
MTC-00023860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If anyone there didn't catch this, this pretty well sums it up. This is an
excerpt of in interview, (Acceptance of the proposed settlement in U.S. v.
Microsoft would clear the road for the company to extend its monopoly to
most if not all aspects of computing, says Judge Robert H. Bork. ``I
don't think it does anything to Microsoft,'' said Bork in an interview
with Linux Planet. ``I think it just lets them continue as they were
before.'') The internet link to the article is: http://
www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/4020/1/
Thanks again, hope your listening.
Jeff Roberts
Spokane, WA.
MTC-00023861
From: David Lawler
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Lawler
333 E Ontario #4412b
Chicago, IL 60611
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats
and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Lawler
MTC-00023862
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:44am
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,
Helen Farson
917 N. Louise St.
Apt. 402
Glendale, CA 91207-2164
MTC-00023863
From: Pari Haridim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my complete disagreement with the case that has
been brought against Microsoft. I and many other Americans made the
decision to voluntarily trade with Microsoft. They did not initiate force
against others to make people buy their products. The only thing that
Microsoft did was become successful by pleasing consumers like me.
This is the United States of America, a country that is supposed to allow
her citizens to pursue ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.'' As an American citizen, I am willing to defend my country
so long as there is something to fight for--freedom and protection of
individual rights (including property rights). Without this, America is no
different then her enemies.
Sincerely,
Pari Haridim
Urbana, Illinois
MTC-00023864
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:45am
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,
Betty Johnson
9102 Hyde Park Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2327
MTC-00023865
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:46am
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,
H. R. Matern
POB 1669
Ft Defiance, AZ 86504-1669
MTC-00023866
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27389]]
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,
John Green
2125 Elanita Dr
San Pedro, CA 90732-4433
MTC-00023867
From: Bradley Greger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00023868
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:50am
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,
Norma Holmes
5500-21 Lennox Avenue
Bakersfield,, CA 93309-1571
MTC-00023870
From: Paul Staley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I believe the Microsoft settlement is a nothing more than a license for
Microsoft to continue its monopolistic practices to the detriment of
genuine competition and consumer choice. The language of the settlement is
so vague and ambiguous that MS will have little trouble evading enforcement
of its own ``alleged'' breaches.
Particularly troubling is MS's offer to resolve by donating millions of
dollars in software to educational institutions, by which action it would
erode one of the few markets in which Apple still has a significant, but
dwindling, market share. In addition to immediately pushing Apple further
into the background, MS would own the next generation of users who, as a
result of MS's enticements, will have sucked at the teat of MS during their
early years.
I cannot protest too loudly that MS's monopolistic practices must be reined
in. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Paul Staley
Attorney at Law
MTC-00023871
From: Jason A.Van Cleve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
I do not support the new proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. As most
of us have known all along, Microsoft has been acting unfairly and to the
detriment of competition and--more importantly--innovation in the
software industry. They should be penalized for this, and penalized in a
way that will actually make them think twice about their actions. But I
stoutly believe more direct steps should also be taken to prevent similarly
unfair and dishonest practices in the future, for Microsoft and any other
company. I believe Microsoft should be split between the OS department and
those of their other large software applications, which should definitely
include I.E. Let me repeat that. Internet Explorer, along with Office and
the rest of Microsoft's desktop applications, should be managed separately
from Windows operating systems development. It is clear to me, as a
software engineer, that this would solve a great many problems with
Microsoft and prevent further unjust injury to competing software vendors.
Thank you,
Jason Van Cleve
MTC-00023872
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:53am
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,
Lloyd Harkey
210 Beacon Hill Drive
Longview, WA 98632
MTC-00023873
From: Haydn Huntley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:56am
Subject: Re: US vs. Microsoft
Dear Judge,
I'm not sure what more to say than that if Microsoft is not puninshed in a
manner commensurate with the seriousness of its crimes, then it will almost
certainly commit more crimes--to the public's detriment.
I am a professional software engineer with a MS in CS and over 20 years of
experience on almost every kind of microcomputer and operating system, and
I'm not surprised that Microsoft was repeatedly found guilty in this case,
and that they also lost on appeal. That they are guilty beyond any
reasonable doubt has been amply demonstrated, and I was also especially
irritated by some of their deceptions (such as claiming that the browser is
integral to the OS, when it is as integral as your car's radio, or when
they submitted a video taped demonstration which had been doctored!). Such
actions indicate their contempt for justice and the judicial system.
Not only that, but during the last year they have continued their efforts
to maintain and extend their monopoly, for example by prohibiting users
from using other browsers on their websites and by removing Java from
Windows XP. They certainly don't seem to behave in a reformed manner!
What should we do with such a pernicious offender?
We must punish them in such a way that it will teach them and cause them to
behave differently in the future.
I've heard that during the last few years, while they were doing their
illegal activities, that they have saved up some 36 billion dollars.
Perhaps a large substantial fine would be a good remedy, and use it to pay
off the national debt. Mightn't that be good for society as a whole?
Also, forcing them to publish all of their file formats for their office
products, forcing them to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows, and to
place the source code for Windows into the public domain would also be
good. If these remedies were used, then Microsoft would not have profitted
from their illegal behavior, and they would not be able to profit in the
future from it either. Isn't this a reasonable remedy?
Anything less will simply reward them and allow, or even cause, them to
continue! Doesn't our society as a whole deserve just reparations in this
case?
--Haydn
Haydn Huntley
[email protected]
voice: 641-472-1495 x133
http://www.artselect.com Custom Framed Art at a 40-50% Savings!
MTC-00023874
From: John E Pillow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27390]]
I think the settlement is not good. It lets Microsoft continue to control
the marketplace.
Thanks
John E Pillow
MTC-00023875
From: Darrow Wendoloski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As a US citizen currently living and working overseas, I am appalled at the
laxity of the proposed judgement against Microsoft. I work in academia, in
the biological and biomedical sciences. Traditionally these disciplines
have used Apple operating systems; however Microsoft's stranglehold on the
US and world programming market means that software developers cannot
afford not to be a Microsoft shop. In turn, this means that new software
(eg DNA sequencing programs) is developed only for MS/IBM clones, with the
net effect that if researchers want to use these new programs they have to
fork over exorbitant sums of money to replace their entire departmental
software systems, plus the perfectly functional software they already have.
And no university department has that kind of money.
Microsoft's conduct with respect to buying out competitors and destroying
their product is odious in the extreme, and the practice of
``bundling'' their browser Internet Explorer with Windows
operating system software in such a way as to render competing browsers
unstable is deceitful and reprehensible. Their attitude to the open-source
community (Linux, BSD etc) is nothing short of paranoiac.
The USA has long prided itself on being a nation where anyone, if they work
hard enough, could make themselves a millionaire or even become President.
The despicable anti-competitive practices engaged in by Microsoft make a
mockery of the Great American Dream. Many thanks for the time you've taken
to read this,
Darrow Wendoloski
Department of Microbiology
University of Melbourne
Ph. +61-3-8344-5711
Fax +61-3-9347-1540
MTC-00023876
From: Shay Logan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:01am
Subject: Against Settlement
I think the settle is not much a punishment to Microsoft.
MTC-00023877
From: Bill Rodgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find the behaviour of AOL appauling. It seems that AOL are more intent to
be seen as a successful court litigator than as a company that would
provide quality software to the public. They can't compete with expertise
and quality products so they seem to want to ``knock'' the
industry standard down to their own level. This will do nothing for the
advancement of technology and the benefits that can have to consumers. It
is time AOL were given a clear message that they either start to get their
software development act together and contribute to the development of
users computing experience or they get out of the game.
Bill Rodgers
Newcastle, Australia
MTC-00023878
From: gani delos santos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00023879
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:04am
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,
Carole Hill
233 Jackson Circle
Louisville, CO 80027-1630
MTC-00023880
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:05am
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,
Thomas Kiker
4124 N. Beltline Rd. Apt. 248
Irving, TX 75038
MTC-00023881
From: gregTHOMY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:08am
Subject: MS BS proposal
I totally DISAGREE w/ MS's proposed settlement for their illegal activity.
Chop em up!
Thank you.
gregTHOMY
PS: It is increasingly difficult to AVOID using this monopoly's
products...this would be ok in communist china but not America!!!
MTC-00023882
From: Les Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:09am
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00023882 0001
As a U.S. Citizen I am petitioning you under the turney act to refuse
microsofts settlement on the grounds that microsoft has practiced unfair
buisness practices in the area a unresonable bariers to entry. The policy I
will cite is the benifit by means of hefty discount microsoft offers new pc
manufactures such as Dell, Compaq And HP to only include their computers
with microsoft product. This effectivly barrs competitors such as linux,
sun micro systems, and unix from the new computer market.
MTC-00023883
From: pc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:09am
Subject: Severe punishment is demanded.
Letting Microsoft get away with anti-competitive practices sends a clear
message to other businesses that the US Supreme Court has no teeth.
You have already found them guilty of a monopoly that has netted them
billions in ill-gotten gain. You must show the backbone to PUNISH THEM in
kind. Microsoft MUST be made to suffer for their blatant transgressions to
the FULL extent of the law. Or perhaps we should change the adage to:
``Cheaters never prosper. Unless they drag it out in court...''
Do the right thing. And make it HURT them financially. You can't bring the
companies they put out of business back to life, but you have a duty to
make damn sure Microsoft thinks twice before trying it again. They have
already exhibited a pattern of remorseless anti-competitive behavior, even
in the face of litigation! They will not understand anything less than
severe punishment. I am writing not just for me and my beliefs, but for
millions of those who won't take the time to write. All is fair in
business. Except anti-trust. They cheated. Don't send America a message
that screwing people is an acceptable business practice. Punish Microsoft
with extreme prejudice.
Peter Crosby
MTC-00023884
From: justin delos santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/25/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
[[Page 27391]]
MTC-00023885
From: Lina Delos Santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/25/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00023886
From: Scott popcorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If you truly want to make a difference with your decision in this case, I
would like to put forth some things for you to consider, and to help
clarify the situation. I am by no means against Microsoft being a player in
the computer market. However, I am on the side of consumer choice.
First and foremost, the ultimate solution will not come from taking care of
one symptom of the problem. The root of the problem needs to be dealt with,
and that is what this letter is intended to point out. While bundling a web
browser with the operating system, and making it an integral part of the
operating system could be looked on as a ``problem'', there is a
deeper problem which, if dealt with in a fair manner, would remedy ALL of
the ``symptoms''.
A bit of background is needed at this point. The idea of an operating
system is very new. The concept of what it actually does was never even
considered before computers were invented, and to this day, most people
can't sufficiently explain its purpose. To call it a ``bridge''
between hardware and software is a very simplistic view. Let's create an
analogy to help explain it further.
Let's say the computer hardware is an automobile. Would the operating
system be the engine? No, the processor would be the engine. So, what would
the operating system be? I like to think of it as the gasoline. The car
can't go anywhere without gasoline. This is still a fairly simplistic view,
but as I continue the analogy, perhaps it will become more clear.
So, what would applications be in this analogy? Let's make the applications
be cities in this analogy. The car has to go to a given city to do a
certain task, and it has to move around in the city to get the task done.
When you are working in a word processor, writing a letter, you have to go
through various menus to change fonts, format the text, save the document,
and print. In our analogy, we would drive our car to a typeface store, and
get our typefaces, go across town to a formatting store, go to the bank to
store our work in a safe deposit box, and go to a printer to have it
printed out.
I think you can start to see how much work, and how important an operating
system is. But now let's get to the root of our problem. When we go into a
city, imagine if we could only buy one brand of gasoline. Imagine if we
were required to use that brand of gasoline to perform our tasks in that
city, even if we had found a different brand of gasoline that we like
better, or gives us better gas mileage, or produces less emissions, or for
any other reason, we like a different gasoline. This is where the problem
lies.
For anyone to be able to go to Microsoft Office City, or Wordperfect Suite
Metropolis, or any other major city, consumers either have to drain their
gas tanks of their chosen gasoline and buy gas from Microsoft, or have two
tanks, one for Microsoft gas. This totally eliminates consumer choice.
Would this be legal in society if it were not in the computer realm? I
don't think so. If the ``gasoline'' were blended a certain way to
limit pollution, I can see it happening. However, the gasoline would not be
from just one company. Instead, all gasoline companies would blend their
fuel to this required standard. Hopefully you now understand the underlying
problem, and I would like to proceed with my ideas to create a solution.
The very first part of the solution is to provide for the standard that the
``gasoline companies'' can blend their fuel to. For this, I would
suggest that Microsoft provide full documentation of the API (Application
Programming Interface) for all of their operating systems, including the
``undocumented'' API's which Microsoft keeps to itself for
Microsoft- written applications. This should be available to anyone who
asks for it, so that operating system programmers (such as Linux, FreeBSD,
BeOS, etc) can write an extended API, which will then allow any application
that was written for Windows to be run on any operating system. This would
allow consumers freedom of choice for operating systems (free to choose the
``gasoline'' they want to use).
An additional measure beyond this solution would be to have various
programmers get together and devise a ``standardized'' API.
Basically, coming up with a completely new API which would take advantage
of the choice of operating system capability. Perhaps creating an API
which, when installing the application, the installer would convert the
application for the best performance with whichever OS it is installed
under.
Second, there should be nothing in any contracts or programming that
prevents the use of other operating systems, such as in a dual-boot setup.
Microsoft has had contracts with its dealers that stated that a non-
Microsoft operating system could not be installed to dual-boot with a
Microsoft operating system, when the computer was sold to a customer.
Finally, I would like to comment on the file system and file formats. The
file system is the underlying structure that dictates how files are stored
on the hard drive. Think of it as how your file folders are arranged and
labeled in your file cabinet. This information should be provided to
computer developers so that one operating system can read files from
another operating system's drive. File formats deal with Microsoft Office,
not the operating system itself. However, if consumers choose not to go to
Microsoft Office City, they should be able to read documents created there,
especially if it is claimed to be a ``standard file format''.
Older file formats are readily available for computer programmers to write
translators, but the newest file formats coming out of Microsoft are not.
The information regarding the file format either needs to be provided so
that other document-handling applications can read these new file formats,
or these file formats should not be allowed to be called
``standard''.
I hope this letter has provided useful insight to help with your decision.
Again, I would like to say that I am not against Microsoft, but rather I
would prefer if everyone was on a level playing field, and Microsoft can
compete equally next to other operating systems, rather than Microsoft
having the tools to keep vital information away from other operating system
programmers, preventing competition. If Microsoft was in the position of
having to actually compete for its share of the computer operating system
market, I think you would find that innovation, stability, and user-
friendliness would come much more quickly to consumers.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to post my comments on this
subject. For the sake of the future of the Computer and Information Age, I
hope you make the right decision.
Scott Lagaly
MTC-00023887
From: Danny Delos Santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/25/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00023888
From: Nancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is very bad and a sure
way for the company to gain yet another monopoly area ``notch''
on their gun. Please rethink this! Do NOT allow this settlement to proceed!
Nancy Godfrey
Las Vegas, NV
MTC-00023889
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:11am
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,
Bill Donohue
423 42nd St.
Richmond, CA 94805
MTC-00023890
From: Michael Sweetman
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27392]]
Date: 1/25/02 1:15am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I wish to voice a couple of concerns I have about the proposed settlement
of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I have a number of concerns about
Microsoft's conduct in the past and I am very concerned about the direction
the company's business practices are taking.
I was, and still am, a frequent user of Microsoft's spreadsheet program
Excel. The program release Excel 97, was a remarkable piece of work for
it's time, and is still an impressive program. However, subsequent releases
of the program have included only marginal improvements. This is can be
evidenced from Microsoft's publicly expressed concerns that the pace of
upgrades for the Office Suite is slowing. Microsoft's proposed solution to
this problem is subscription licensing, in other words, you pay for
upgrades, whether they improve the software or not. Any other company would
have their sales associates laughed out of business with tactics like this.
However, the Microsoft Office format has become a de facto standard, and no
business can afford to be without it. I am very concerned the pace of
innovation with this product will slow even further, even as the cost of
the software rises. My next concern is with Microsoft's refusal to
institute a volume licensing scheme for home users. I have a large family,
and I it is near necessity for every child from middle school on to have
their own computer for their school work. To achieve this, I have either
purchased, or salvaged 5 low grade Pentium computers. However, these
machines did not come with an operating system. Includingsales tax, a legal
install of windows on these machines would cost over $1000. This price has
no rreasonableccorrelationto the use that these machines rreceive Therefore
I found it necessary to use the Linux operating system for these machines.
However, this is not a viable aalternativefor families that do not have a
resident engineer, as Linux requires a great deal more technical
proficiency. I believe that this practice has kept used computers from
becoming a low cost alternative to a new computer for many low income
families.
Finally, I want to express my absolute outrage over the OEM volume
licensing agreements. Excel is the ONLY Microsoft product that I use.
However, since Microsoft refuses to port it Linux, I also must have a copy
of windows. However, now that I have this, I have no more desire to
purchase a computer with Windows. It is however, impossible to purchase an
Intel compatible PC without Windows pre loaded from any major manufacturer.
This leaves me with no alternative, but to build my own system. I am forced
to deal with poor quality, short warranties, and poor service in order to
buy a computer without paying Microsoft's exorbitant licensing fee. It's
not much I'm asking for, just the choice to buy Dell, for instance, with
Linux; but Microsoft has precluded this. For all the talk of their freedom
to innovate, my freedom to chose, and to contribute to the fastest growing
alternative operating system is severely curtailed.
In closing, I urge you to take strong action against Microsoft, in order to
restore competitiveness to the computer marketplace. I realize that
breaking up the company is probably an impractical solution, but that
doesn't matter, because a better alternative exists anyway. That lies is
Microsoft's vast collection of intellectual property. The purpose of IP
protection is to ensure that a wide variety of artist and scientific works
become commercially available. Protection of Microsoft's IP is at this
point is having the opposite effect. I believe that forcing Microsoft to
disclose selected portions of their source code for various programs will
have the effect of causing viable and inter operable alternatives to
Microsoft products to come to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Michael Sweetman
MTC-00023891
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:15am
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,
Dale Weckbacher 4116 N. 72nd Drive Phoenix, AZ 85033-3151
MTC-00023892
From: Cerrise W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:18am January 25, 2002 To whom it may concern at the
Department of Justice,
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I
am a victim (as are you) of shameless abuse by the Microsoft corporation.
If I do something that is against the law, I will be punished. This
deterrent is the foundation of our justice system. If I live in some parts
of the country, and I break the law (any law) three times, I will go to
prison. There can be no exceptions.
I do not expect to have more liberty than anyone else in this country. I
also do not support any judgement in which the judicial system awards one
person or entity more liberty than any other person or entity. This is
discrimination.
With the Proposed Final Judgement in this case, you will be making the
following statement true: ``I (a citizen of the United States of
America) do not own or operate a powerful monopoly, therefore I would be
punished for breaking the law, even though the owners and administrators of
a powerful monopoly can knowingly and gratuitously disregard the law and
not only escape punishment, but actually profit from their many and brutal
crimes.'' Note: I feel that invading my privacy for the purposes of
exploitation; actively denying me or anyone the opportunity to compete
economically-- enforcing a monopoly; and interfering with my
constitutional rights in any way, are brutal and unforgivable crimes, which
should be severely punished. Please do not discriminate against me by
approving the Proposed Final Judgement; which lacks any punishment
whatsoever for undeniably heinous and illegal acts by the Microsoft
corporation.
I (and every other citizen of the U.S.) have been exploited and abused by
the Microsoft corporation, therefore I ask that you do more than shake your
finger at them. They are undeniably guilty of very serious crimes against
the American people. They are responsible for what amounts to information
terrorism. Please do not encourage them to do it again and ruthlessly, by
not punishing them.
If you approve the Proposed Final Judgement; you will be giving away my
rights to a corporation, in the interest of money. I will be apalled,
ashamed, and even afraid to live in a country where the law can be so
blatantly ignored.
Sincerely,
Cerrise Weiblen
Freelance XA
1559 Taft Court
Louisville, CO 80027
MTC-00023893
From: Kevin Waller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 601 D Street
NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mrs. 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,
Kevin Waller
76 Eddiceton Circle South S.E.
Meadville, MS 39653
MTC-00023894
From: Doug Schafer
[[Page 27393]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement. It does not take into
account Microsoft's past avoidance of the intent of the consent decree. It
should be assumed Microsoft will act in bad faith as they have in the past.
If this assumption is made, the proposed settlement easily allows Microsoft
to continue monopolistic practices that will cause long-term damage to this
country. To allow free-market forces to reign, Microsoft cannot be allowed
to turn what is currently a public resource (the internet) into its private
tool. This would be akin to a company subtly modifying all the on and off
ramps of the federal highway system so that only company-approved vehicles
could use them. Competitors must be able to interoperate with, and replace
components of, Microsoft operating systems. This requires that the
government prevent Microft from blocking this access via legal or tecnical
means. The proposed final jugdement falls far short of this.
Sincerely,
Doug Schafer [[email protected]]
5720 Ridgebrook Drive
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
818.444.2356
MTC-00023895
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
Dr. & Mrs. Raun Lohry
25637 K-22
Merrill, IA 51038
MTC-00023896
From: Karen Corbitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thank you for allowing public input on the Microsoft Settlement.
As a consumer, I appreciate the balance America maintains between
innovation and illegal monopoly efforts. With both elements in place, the
our standard of living and economy has greatly increased. It is important
that the legal safeguards are followed, but that they do not interfere with
or cripple companies that promote innovation. If litigation is allowed to
hamper legitimate efforts that experience success in the marketplace, we
will soon be a nation without advances in many fields.
I believe that the Microsoft Case has already hurt consumers, crushed the
stock market, and hampered innovation of both Microsoft and its
competitors. It is time to settle the grievances and encourage growth in a
struggling economy. --
Karen Corbitt, [email protected]
MTC-00023897
From: Deborah Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:21am
Subject: comments on emasculating anti-trust suits
When Microsoft Word shut down my entire computer in the spring of 2000, and
corrupted--almost beyond retrievability--my Master's
thesis--I rejoiced that the far-superior WordPerfect might NOT be put
out of business by the Microsoft monopoly, if only the DOJ might prevail
Now, the *new* DOJ is suggesting a ``punishment'' of placing this
software with huge numbers of K-12 kids? That is like giving (bad) drugs
away for free. I note that *during* settlement negotiations, Microsoft
shipped out a Windows XP product that will shut down users'' *entire*
machines--and all other applications--if the Microsoft goes
without activation beyond a set date I also note that *since* the DOJ
``settlement'', Microsoft has (1) had the audacity to refuse FBI
requests to Email notice of security problems in its software *found* not
by Microsoft but by an independent watchdog; and (2) now admits that it
suppressed information on a legal brief by failing to disclose lobbying of
Congress in connection with your anti-trust suit.
Why are these wealthy monoipolists continually hiding information and
thumbing their collective noses at our administration-- without any
apparent consequences?
As a law student at Rutgers, I am looking forward to seeing an ultimate
anti-trust victory by the states which bravely refused to be co-opted into
DOJ's settlement.
I hope you will make the right decisions for a *true* capitalist democracy
and prove those pundits wrong who point to the proposed DOJ settlement as
proof that Microsoft campaign money bought the same level of power in this
administration as had Enron...
This is your opportunity prove us wrong, and avoid making a desperately bad
settlement even more embarrassing.
Sinceley,
Deborah Alexander
75 Hillcrest Road
Warren, NJ 07059
MTC-00023898
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:20am
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 Brady
3400 Cortez St.
West Covina, CA 91791
MTC-00023899
From: James Puckett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madame,
Please do NOT move forward with the proposed Microsoft antitrust
settlement. In its current form, the settlement proposed by the Department
of Justice will do little to break Microsoft's monopoly. By only
restricting Microsoft's behavior toward other commercial entities, you
restrict Microsoft's behavior toward a group of companies it has already
conquered and will have little trouble continuing to dominate. Open Source
and Free software are the only real competition that Microsoft has left in
this world; and because that work is non profit, developers of said
software will receive no protection in your proposed settlement. Given free
reign to attack Open-Source and Free software, Microsoft will flex all the
muscle it can to destroy products like Apache, Samba, Linux, and anything
else that Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates feel threatens their company's
monopoly. You MUST move to an alternate remedy. First, Microsoft should be
split, just as judge Jackson recommended, so that the Office and Windows
monopolies can no longer be used to strongarm users, vendors, and OEMs
toward both products. Second, Microsoft most open the workings of their
APIs and networking protocols so that they cannot constantly work to shut
out others in such simple areas as file sharing and network domains.
Please do no sell out the future of computing, the internet, and who knows
what else to Microsoft. Microsoft's guilt and arrogance are obvious in this
case, and if a real punishment is not issued, the Microsoft monopoly will
only get worse, and will be abused even more. America needs you. Stop
Microsoft now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Puckett
12010 Waterside View Drive
Apartment 34
Reston, VA 20194
MTC-00023900
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27394]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
Bob Kubera
PO Box 868
Millinocket, ME 04462
MTC-00023901
From: john campisi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
There is an opportunity at this juncture to demonstrate that the Laws of
the Land are enforced and fairly applied regardless of monetary or
political clout. There has been a determination of violation of the
antitrust statutes by Microsoft. A remedy must be imposed that is
significant and serves to correct the market imbalance caused by the
violation. Due to the advanced stage of market domination achieved through
monopolistic practices, it is imperative that remedies must be focused on
opening and leveling the playing field. Such remedies must be continuing
and monitored for effectiveness and should not be restricted to one time
financial penalties (no matter how large). It is clear that a meaningful
remedy will have similar aspects as affirmative action. Effectively, it is
necessary for Microsoft to be put at a disadvantage to its competitors
until sufficient balance in the market is achieved for open and fair
competition to succeed. Aspects to consider include:
1. Limitation of the practice of the bundling of software with hardware
purchases to allow consumer choice without incurring cost penalties.
2. Ensuring that the details of the structure of the Microsoft operating
system and industry standard application file structure is made available
to all application developers to equal extent.
3. Requiring Microsoft to provide application programming interfaces to its
operating system for use by application developers of all types.
MTC-00023902
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:23am
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,
Keith Schacher
6795 S.W. King Blvd.
Beaverton, OR 97008-5323
MTC-00023903
From: Jonathan Lupa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:40am
Subject: Voicing opposition to the current MS settlement.
As a professional win32 software developer, there are many aspects of the
settlement that I find troubling not least of which is the fact that the
government is entering into a concilliatory agreement with a proven
monopolist who has committed crimes and flaunted previous consent
agreements.
To save both our time, I will mention just one of my many grievances which
is that without a structural change in the management of API vs.
Application layer within the windows operating system, any remedy found by
the agreement will only be temporary as it leaves open the door to further
abuse of their monopoly position to price and engineer competition out of
the win32 product market.
I apologise for not entering a technical breakdown of the reasoning I used
to reach this conclusion, but in the short time you have to review these
letters, I doubt you will find the time to check everyones logic. I wish
you the best in your endevours on this project.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Lupa
Senior Win32 Developer
Creative Solutions Inc. --
[email protected]
MTC-00023904
From: Jon V. Reuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the United State Department of Justice:
I would like to comment (via the Tunney Act) on the proposed settlement in
the Microsoft antitrust case. I am strongly opposed to the proposed
settlement as it does absolutely nothing to address Microsoft's violations
of antitrust laws--it only prohibits them from abusing these laws in
the future, and even that is questionable. If an organization engages in
illegal activity, benefits from this activity and then receives as a
``punishment'' instructions that they can no longer engage in
illegal activity, they have still benefited without any consequences. This
is not justice--not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
public which the U.S. Department of Justice should be representing.
Microsoft has been clearly found guilty of abusing their monopoly.
Monopolies, and the lack of competition that they produce, stifle
innovation and result in lower quality products. The public now suffers the
consequences of this as they have no choice in desktop software, are forced
to upgrade and are stuck with whatever products Microsoft produces (along
with their inherent quality and security issues). At the same time,
Microsoft has had no incentive to address quality and security issues
because they have a lock on the market.
For the benefit of the public, I encourage you to rework the proposed
settlement for a more fitting punishment for Microsoft's violation of U.S.
antitrust laws and for a more fair desktop software market.
Technology works well when independent standards are created, clearly
defined and strictly followed. Every vendor has an equal opportunity to
follow and implement the standards with their best effort. When this
happens, the public can decide for themselves which product they like best
and this results in a healthy assortment of products and companies to
choose from. This philosophy has worked well in many areas of technology,
particularly in hardware, where we have seen an abundance of healthy
competition and increasingly better and less expensive products.
Unfortunately this has not worked well in the software industry, but there
is no reason that it couldn't. While establishing software standards is
arguably more complicated and more involved, many successful independent
standards have been developed. The database Structured Query Language (SQL)
is a good example. If I want to build a database, I have many database
vendors to choose from that all follow the SQL standard. I can even change
vendors at a later time and still have the interoperability I require.
To this end I would like to recommend the following (at a minimum):
1. Microsoft should be required to publicly disclose all APIs, protocols
and file formats. These should be available to ANYONE--NOT just
parties with a justified business case. The documentation of all Microsoft
APIs, protocols and file formats should be carried out by an independent,
overseeing party (not Microsoft), as to ensure quality and accurate
documentation. This measure would create a more fair market place by
opening up competition to implement interoperable products in desktop
software.
2. Microsoft should be penalized for any independent standards that they
alter. Microsoft has often altered standards for their own benefit and for
extending their monopoly. For any standard Microsoft alters or does not
adhere to, they should be required to correct for full compliance.
[[Page 27395]]
3. Microsoft should also be required to release their source code for any
products that they no longer support. Consumers should not be forced to
upgrade their software any time Microsoft releases new products, but that
is typically what happens. Having source code available for any products
that Microsoft no longer supports will give the consumer a more fair choice
about the decision to upgrade.
4. Finally, Microsoft should not be allowed to dictate what gets bundled
with their operating systems. This is exactly what they use to extend their
monopoly, making the market place unfair and putting other companies out of
business. As part of their punishment for violating U.S. anti-trust laws,
everything they decide to bundle with their operating system should be
scrutinized and approved by an independent governing body.
I would appreciate your consideration of my comments.
Thank you,
Jon Reuter
Consulting Engineer
MTC-00023905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:28am
Subject: US v Microsoft comment
Sirs;
Microsoft has a long history of deception and unethical and illegal methods
in the pursuit of corporate profits. Unfortunately it is long past time
that the Federal government take substantial action against their actions.
Off the top of my head:
--Tactics used against Netscape, specifically, bundling Internet
Explorer in the base operating system and giving it away. Microsoft
subsequently lied saying it could not be removed.
--Microsoft struck a licensing deal with Spyglass [NCSA] for the
Mosaic code which was reborn as Internet Explorer. The deal was a
percentage for each copy of IE sold. Microsoft then bundled Internet
Explorer with the operating system and so never paid any royalties.
--Forcing computer hardware vendors to install and pay for their
operating system on every computer shipped using their licensing agreements
as leverage. This cost is still passed on the the consumer even if the
consumer does not want Microsoft's operating system. This same tactic was
used to force hardware vendors to remove Netscape from their installation
software bundles.
--Windows 98 online registration would send Microsoft a unique
hardware-based composite ID for the registrants machine, which could then
be used to track that machine online. The registration program would send
the ID to Microsoft even if the registrant declined.
--Microsoft's .NET architecture give them unannounced access to every
computer running their operating system. This should raise an immediate
concern over privacy and security issues given Microsoft's history and
nature. Does the Federal goverenment use Microsoft operating systems? After
all this Microsoft proposes to give away it's software to schools as
restitution for past antitrust [and other] actions thus spreading their
monopoly to school children. This would be the .NET architecture.
I sincerely hope my government is not duped in to becoming the next victim
of Microsoft's corporate rape and plunder mentality.
Regards,
Timothy D. Moore
I have:
--been in the software engineering business since 1980
--owned personal computers since the IBM-PC days
--bought Microsoft products prior to their transition to illegal and
unethical company
--worked for companies like Digital Equipment Corporation and Sun
Microsystems
--started my own company in Silicon Valley I do not and will not use
any Microsoft products or services.
408.249.9859--650.224.7437c
MTC-00023906
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:27am
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,
marylyn Ohlmann 148 King Ave East Dundee, IL 60118-1504
MTC-00023907
From: Warren TenBrook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my disapproval with the proposed settlement between
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. I encourage the
Court reject this settlement proposal.
Among the settlement's many flaws, I particularly disapprove of terms which
do not control Microsoft's ability to enter into anticompetitive licensing
agreements. For example, the settlement does not control Microsoft
licensing terms that restrict OEM installation of competing operating
system software where no Microsoft operating system is installed.
Thank you
Warren TenBrook
http://home.pacbell.net/tenbrook/
[email protected]
MTC-00023908
From: Dave Neu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I dislike the proposed settlement, and find it alarming on a number of
points which are, I am certain, well documented in Dan Kegel's open
comments letter.
Thanks for your time.
Dave Neu
It is tempting, when the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat
everything as if it were a nail.
Abraham Maslow
MTC-00023909
From: Niki Kovacs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I'm an Austrian Citizen living in Montpellier / South France, and working
part-time as a webdesigner. I want to briefly express my opinion about
Microsoft and the Anti-Trust Settlement. I'll be brief: I truly think the
commercial brutality of Microsoft is only equalled by the bad quality of
their products. To give you an example from everyday life , I've been
designing websites for two years now, and I've been forced to spend more
time behind my PC than in front of it, due to a very badly designed
Operating System. But everytime you go to a computer shop, they can only
give you advice on Microsoft Products, and nothing else.
Imagine American Citizens (no: everybody on earth!) would only be allowed
to buy a Trabant for a car (that's an east-german brand, a very badly
designed car). Unfortunately, everytime a car retailer wants to sell a new
brand of cars (say: a Chrysler, or a Renault), the Trabant trust comes in
and forces him to buy their wrecks. Now you know how I feel about
Microsoft. Personal remark: I'm currently studying Linux, taking an
intensive two-month-course. After only two weeks, my enthusiasm about this
goes far beyond my expectations. Because for the first time, my PC actually
*works* without crashing.
In my not so humble opinion, the world would be a better place without
Microsoft products, at least for programmers. But in the meantime, it would
be nice to allow some place for the concurrents who build much better
operating systems.
Regards,
Niki Kovacs
MTC-00023910
From: Denny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea.
MTC-00023911
From: Steve Benninghoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27396]]
Dear Judge (or more likely the poor clerks who must read e-mail all day), I
write to express my concern that the government would, after all the work
of winning the court battle, not just drop the ball in terms of a remedy,
but effectively play into Microsoft's hands by extending their monopoly
into one of the few niches where there still is a competitor. There is no
doubt the use of the donated software would lead to an increase in MS
market share in the poorer school districts, and once they have established
that position, those new poor districts will be their customers for
life--they would not have the money to switch if they chose to. No
good. It really is astonishing to think how far all the dependence upon
Microsoft has been allowed to go--for the great majority of people, in
all walks of life, their really is little choice. And given how incredibly
important computers have become to the country and economy, this is just a
bad, bad idea. And there is simply no question that MS has done everything
in its power--and that is a lot of power-- to directly prevent
there ever becoming another player in their game. While the DOJ can't
single-handedly fix this massive problem for the security and economic
viability of the country, it can make sure there is some opportunity for
the situation to right itself by normal market forces. That can't happen
when, at every single opportunity, MS plays as dirty a pool as it can to
keep other players out of the game. Please, please come up with a remedy
that will force them to compete fairly-- this is far more important
than people realize, from strategic, economic, and national interest
perspectives--and by all means don't play right into their hands by
letting them supply second-rate equipment and their software to train the
poorer districts that Microsoft will control their world--courtesy of
an anti-trust remedy!
Thank you sincerely for the work and the effort so far, and all the best
wishes in your continued endeavors,
Steven T. Benninghoff
Interim Director of Technical Communication
Case Western Reserve University
MTC-00023912
From: McKenney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tera McKenney
MTC-00023913
From: V.Popov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea
V.Popov mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00023914
From: Richard Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft case.
It surprises me that a violator is being given the opportunity to negotiate
a settlement when a conviction has already been reached. What do the people
get in return for this agreement? Almost any judge would be certain to
impose a much more effective remedy. The proposed settlement appears to be
driven by politics, rather than by a desire to correct a bad situation. The
fact is, the settlement contains no ``teeth''. We had the consent
decree several years ago, but it solved nothing. Microsoft continued its
usual business practices, and even further extended its monopoly during
this time. Under the proposed settlement, we can expect more of the same.
Microsoft extends its monopoly by keeping its APIs and file formats secret,
subverting standardization efforts in the computer industry. Microsoft
should be required to publish this information for each of its software
products (operating systems especially) prior to the release of the
product. This should be applied retroactively to require the immediate
release of such documentation for all current products. Going further, it
would also be effective to require publication of source code for each
operating system under an open source license, after some fixed interval
(such as a year) following the release of the operating system. Also, any
effective solution must put an end to the OEM pricing deals that Microsoft
makes, which it uses to ensure that practically every PC sold includes a
Microsoft operating system license, whether the buyer wants to use
Microsoft software or not. I hope the Dept. of Justice will reconsider this
settlement and insist on one that will actually produce a more level
business and technology playing field.
Sincerely,
Richard Moore
3 Thornwood
Irvine, CA 92604
MTC-00023915
From: Stennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to express my support of the Microsoft Settlement that has
been proposed. It is past time that this fiasco be put behind us. While I
feel there was very little merit in the original suit, it is best that we
do that which is necessary to remove this cloud and move forward. There is
no doubt that all of this has contributed to the Nation's economic troubles
and will continue to do so until it is resolved.
I am not a computer expert but we do have two computers which we use on a
daily basis. On both of these computers we use Netscape. I hold a Ph.D. in
economics so I have a little understanding of the economics involved.
Netscape's and Sun's problem was that they had inferior products. While I
use Netscape, it has many problems. It is not a matter Netscape sales
because it tends to be a free good to anyone that will use it--they
make their money on all of the ads they flood one with. In our department
we used Sun work stations but with the event of more powerful PC's, we
found that the job could be done with less expensive hardware and without
complication of using Unix. The free market provides that those who can
provide a product most efficiently will prosper and those who cannot
compete will move on to other enterprises. What we are saying now is that
we will penalize those do the job best and protect inferior products which
cannot compete on a level playing field.
I should note that one part of the settlement I disagree with is the
limitation of Microsoft's ability to to include Explorer with their
operating system. A consumer should have the right to receive a product
which has all of the features that he/she might want to use. One does not
have to use Microsoft's features--I could still use Netscape if I
desired. But I do object to a court denying me the right to receive that
which would be offered. I would like to be able to walk into the store and
purchase a product which provided all of the features I might need. Any
vendor should have the right to provide the same thing but they should not
have the right to prevent someone else from doing so. Look at this way.
When I go in to purchase a car, I do not expect to receive a frame and a
body and to be told that I must go to other venders to get my engine, my
tires, my radio, etc. In summary, let us get this behind us. The Justice
Department and the self serving parties who filed this suit have done
enough damage to the economy, consumers, and the Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Earl A. Stennis
117 Little John Lane
Starkville, MS 39759
662 323 7809
MTC-00023916
From: David Anfinrud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that this case is unjust. Innovation is being hurt by these
litigations. It appears that people just want to take all of Microsoft's
war chest that allows it to continue to innovate even more. What will
happen if we have no Microsoft. Will innovation continue. Microsoft has
been a leading edge in the last few years.
I was a Netscape user I paid for my copy of Netscape in spite of the free
Internet explorer. I supported the company I respected. Until they provided
a poor product during several upgrades. Each time I loaded the latest and
greatest it had even more problems than the previous product. When that
took place the third time I stopped using it. A company has to earn my
money. They need to innovate. I had so many crashes and problems with
Netscape I said enough is enough. No matter how good they said they were if
it doesn't work it is not worth having or paying for. It was the innovation
and the improvements that made the difference not the cost. I want
something that works not something that was hit and miss.
I have used a large number of Word Processors in my time. I was a big fan
of Word Perfect but again innovation started to disappear from the product.
I also owned the complete Word Perfect Suite. I paid for a quality product.
At that time Word Perfect was the innovator that Microsoft had to compete
against. In the early years no one
[[Page 27397]]
could touch Word Perfect Office. Now I can't compare the two. Microsoft has
developed a better Office suite. Now Microsoft Office meets my needs. Word
Perfect is still dear to my heart but again innovation is what has won out.
I will stay with a company only so long. Today It is Microsoft Office.
Tomorrow who knows but it had better be a better product than what
Microsoft has developed. Innovation again wins out. It was the way the
companies see about developing their products. Yes Microsoft was aggressive
but is it not true in any business. You find where you are lacking and
improve the weakness and innovate.
Today Microsoft is the Leader. They are looking ahead. While the
competition should be improving their own products they spend money and
political favors to try to prevent the next series of innovations from
taking place. Is it the interest of the public to prevent a better product
from being developed because those who don't want to innovate feel they are
being cheated? Are we to provide poor quality items instead of excellent
ones? Where is the public interest in that? What is happening behind the
scenes? I see congressman trying to destroy Microsoft in favor of companies
in their own states.
I believe it is in the best interest to get this court case over with.
Enough is enough. Resources that could provide a better product for
Microsoft Users is being hindered and given to lawyers. The only winners
here are the lawyers, a few non innovating companies, and the states but
not the public. Every one wants something. There are a number of companies
out in the market who practice even worse monopoly powers. They just don't
have the exposure. This case has hurt the Tech sector of the economy. It
still provides a drag with no end in sight. In a middle of a recession and
still the good of Microsoft and its present day accomplishments are
demonized because of what happened years ago.
Sincerely yours,
David A. Anfinrud
234 243rd Ave SE
Sammamish, WA 98074
MTC-00023917
From: Ron the Golfer
To: Microsoft ATR, Backman Ron
Date: 1/25/02 1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since the dispute in question is between the US Government and Microsoft, a
possible condition for settlement might be instruct all US Government, all
its agencies and their associated contractors NOT to do business with
Microsoft. I have worked for the US Navy for 37 years as an IT
professional, and I assue you there are plenty of alternative software
systems and applications in the marketplace to pick from to do our daily
business. This NO Business clause would include all Microsoft operating
systems, Network browsers, Enterprise e-mail servers, Office applications,
drawing tools and database tools.
Simply deny Microsoft the business of the US Government! To implement this
decision is rather simple. Modify Federal procurement regulations directing
all Contracting agencies and Contracting Officers to NOT do business with
Microsoft and directing the same agencies to replace existing Microsoft
products within a certain time period, (i.e. 18 months) The cost of this
transition would be paid for by Microsoft as part of the penalty clause,
thus costing the taxpayers nothing.
This response would punish Microsoft appropriately and reward companies
like Apple, Netscape and Sun, who are viewed by the public as the victims.
The message would be straight and clear. The US Federal Government will not
do business with a ``monopoly'' in any way, shape or form. Our
government is large enough to make a difference to the business income of
Microsoft. At the same time, businesses that were the victims of these un-
business like tactics would be rewarded by additional sales and support.
Ron Backman
Chief Technology Officer
FeelGoodGolf Learning Centers
MTC-00023918
From: John Mulhall
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms Hesse:
By way of introduction, my name is John A. Mulhall. I am a practicing
pharmacist with Eckerd Drug in Syracuse, New York. As a taxpayer and
consumer, I strongly support the proposed settlement with Microsoft in the
government's long-standing Clinton-era antitrust lawsuit. So far, it has
been estimated that the lawsuit has cost the American taxpayers more than
$35 million. What a waste of taxpayer dollars in this witch hunt! I urge
you to put a stop to this travesty of justice NOW.
The way I see it, this lawsuit has been nothing more than a form of welfare
for Netscape and other competitors of Microsoft, as well as a way for
states to get ``free'' money. It has done absolutely nothing for
those supposedly harmed by Microsoft, the computer users of this nation,
and has greatly discouraged technological innovation. This is not
``the American Way''. At least not the America in my mind's eye.
The waste of taxpayer dollars aside, I, for one, hold the United States
government, and specifically the Department of Justice, responsible for
crippling this premier high-tech cog in the nation's economy. Is this
really an opportune time when we can afford to continue to harm the
backbone of this country? Has not the DOJ suffered enough ``black
eyes''? Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer
icon from the desktop. The proposed settlement is in the best interest of
all involved:
--Microsoft: can continue to provide innovative software that
integrates new products
--Competitors: can return to the creation of new products which can be
incorporated or made compatible with Windows
--Consumers: can have more software choices --Investors: can have
marketplace stability If the lawsuit is allowed to continue, the
expenditures involved will be even more outrageous to the American taxpayer
than they already are. The nine states and the District of Columbia still
involved in the case have retained many high-priced lawyers intent on
dragging this out for a very long time. They have issued twice as many
requests for information, including frivolous subpoenas of non-involved
third parties, during the remedy phase of the trial than the previous 19
states did in the entire liability phase.
It is high time to put an end to this abuse of hard-working American
taxpayers. The economy is in dire need of a remedy to this situation. The
proposed settlement is a fair one. I thank you in advance for your time and
consideration in this very important matter. It is my hope that you and
your staff can keep me up-to-date regarding the status of the settlement.
Sincerely Yours,
John A. Mulhall, RPh
7 Evergreen Lane
Cazenovia, New York 13035
(315)655-4859
MTC-00023919
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:48am
Subject: US versus Microsoft
I would like to add my comments concerning the proposed settlement between
the DOJ and states versus Microsoft. I very much feel that Microsoft is a
monopoly that has abused its monopoly power. Microsoft has not found it
sufficient to become a dominant player in the markets in which it
works--rather it wants to completely control these markets. I think
that you guys will have had heard many arguments that I could end up
rehashing. So let me try a different tack. Like John Ashcroft, I am a
Christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God. So let me attempt to
argue from a Christian perspective.
I do not think that market forces are God given. In my limited
understanding, many of our modern notions of capitalism derive from Adam
Smith rather than from any religious ideas. Yet, many today act as though
the current economic structure is ``natural''--that the way
in which businesses fight each other, using market forces to leverage their
way to the top, is perfectly legitimate, and that somehow rules like the
antitrust laws are simply artificial contraints designed to protect the
weaker less able companies. In this view, it is perfectly legitimate to use
all ones economic resources to destroy the work of another. But the
economic structure in Old Testament Israel, described in Leviticus 25, was
quite different. There were many similarities--there certainly was the
concept of ownership--it was not communism. But there were also rules
designed so that one person would not become completely economically
dominant. In particular, every 50 years debts were cancelled. This meant
that land would be restored back to the original family. This meant that
indebtitude would not be passed from generation to generation. And most of
all, it meant that one
[[Page 27398]]
person or family could not keep collecting and collecting more and more
property and wealth so as to completely dominate everyone else. These laws
were meant to control obsessive greed, and God promised severe retribution
to those who would disobey or abuse these laws.
I believe that the antitrust laws are good and righteous laws. I believe
that it is important both for the spiritual and economic health of the
country that these laws be upheld. I very much believe that it is a
blessing from God to receive wealth and prosperity, but also that it is
wrong to pursue money to the expense of all else--``the love of
money is the root of many evils.''
I feel that if the Department of Justice fails to pursue the full
provisions of the antitrust laws, that ultimately they will allow a bully
to go unchecked. Those who have the power to help the weaker members of
society will have stood by and let it happen. Those appointed by God to
carry out justice will have defaulted upon their responsibilities.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
[email protected]
http://www.math.missouri.edu/stephen
MTC-00023920
From: Gary Lindgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clerk of the Court:
Please work with Department of Justice and the 9 States Attorney Generals
that recommend settling this case. The settlement seems fair. The most
important issue is that Microsoft be allowed to add whatever features they
seem fit to have. Software developers always see new ways to make the
product more useful and easier to use or more secure from hackers. This
must continue. However, Microsoft must agree to the terms set down. I
suggest:
1. Publish operating APIs on there web site within 6 months of settlement
date.
2. Publish open pricing for operating system and other applications and not
force penalties if PC builders add other software. The recent suit that AOL
has brought against Microsoft is without merit. Netscape lost users because
their product is not as good as Microsoft Internet Explorer. Netscape
application is always available for download or can be received in the
mail. I must receive at least a dozen copies of AOL CD-ROM a year.
Please lets get this case settled.
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-594-3846
MTC-00023921
From: John C. Stilin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Now AOL Sues For Netscape? I seem to recall that the Netscape Navigator
Browser could be downloaded free from the Netscape Web site and oh by the
way they forced you to accepted it with a home page default set to
Netscape. Did anybody ever bother to check how many people paid for the
free browser per the Netscape agreement? How can Netscape claim harm when
Microsoft priced their product Internet Explorer to equal that of Netscape?
How do you undercut free? Just goes to prove if you can't compete in the
high tech industry, forget personal accountability, blame somebody else and
sue. It's the American way. Let's not waste more taxpayer dollars in this
matter just because Netscape doesn't know how to run a business.
John C. Stilin
[email protected]
17611 NE 110th Way
Redmond WA 98052
425.881.1632
tel 425.881.6173
fax 425.922.3435 cel
MTC-00023922
From: Codifex Maximus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern and:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001,
I am concerned with the length of duration of the judgment as proposed in
the Proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft. Microsoft has shown a
contempt for consent decrees and judgments in the past and based on past
experience will probably do so again.
I am alarmed at the impunity in which Microsoft acts in the information and
technology spheres. It would seem to me that Microsoft is attempting to
usurp the constitutional powers of the United States Government--is
not disregarding the rule of law such an action? Should Microsoft not abide
by a decree or judgment until it is overturned or nullified rather that
continuing business as usual while the wheels of justice turn? To contain
such activities, I've constructed an example of an alternative duration of
Judgment. Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer.
// Duration of Final Judgment
This Final Judgment shall remain in force until Microsoft has been judged,
by the tripartite oversight committee and the court of jurisdiction, to
have maintained compliance with this document (final judgment document) for
an initial 5 years and for 2 additional years for each adjudged
infringement of the controls in this document. Each adjudged infringement
of the controls in the Final Judgment document, by Microsoft or it's
entities, shall also have a financial penalty assessed. Such financial
penalty is to be determined by a schedule of penalties determined by the
tripartite committee and the court of jurisdiction. The penalties shall in
no way deprive lawful entities under the jurisdiction of the United States
of America of their civil right to suit.
I am a Citizen of the United States of America and I wish to remain in
command of my rights and liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights including all statutory and common law rights. I pray
that the Department of Justice will protect these rights by ensuring we
have a free and competitive market in information as well as other
technologies.
Sincerely,
--
Bennie Gravitt
[email protected]
Phone: 817-946-2332
MTC-00023923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:51am
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,
MARGARET GATES
14090 SPRIGGS ROAD
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22193-3600
MTC-00023924
From: Todd C. Lawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have used Microsoft products for years, but I have largely stopped since
I've heard about the predatory practices that were brought to light in the
anti-trust suit against them. The findings of fact against Microsoft were
right on, and should be followed to their natural conclusion--a break
up. One of the few key roles for government in the economy, after the
printing of money, is the breakup of monopolies. Monopolies such as the one
demonstrated by Microsoft not only stifle the marketplace, they injure
consumers. As such, I stand firmly opposed to the settlement. Even if you
disagree with me that the suit should not be continued, there is NO WAY
Microsoft should be allowed to settle by putting its software out gratis to
schools--a thinly veiled slap at one of the few markets it doesn't
dominate, thanks to Apple Computer's efforts in education. Agreeing to this
permits Microsoft to EXPAND their monopoly, and is not a middle ground safe
for a settlement.
We now find ourselves in the midst of a re-assessment of what common
business practices should be, in the post-Enron era. The predatory
practices of Microsoft are more shameful than the corrupt practices of
Enron, and MUST NOT STAND. Do NOT let them weasel out of it and broaden
their monopoly in the process. You owe it to the market, the customers, the
students and the taxpayers.
[[Page 27399]]
Todd C. Lawson
311 West Glenrosa Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85013
MTC-00023925
From: Steve Van Damme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm outraged at the Department of Justice's settlement with Microsoft. I'm
not an industry player, just a consumer. But I can smell a bad deal for the
public when its that ripe.
How could you be so blind about the intentions of Microsoft when it offered
to give away ``a billion dollars worth'' of its software and some
old hardware to schools? Its obvious they are trying to make lemonade out
of their loosing the court case by getting their products into schools
unfairly where they are not exactly wholeheartedly embraced, and for good
reason. Give schools, not Microsoft, the chance to choose what THE SCHOOLS
think is best for them.
Make them give the billion in cash; make them EARN their share of school
budgets. If you don't, you've either been paid off by Microsoft, or you've
been suckered by them, and in my opinion, either way makes you much less
respectable.
Steve Van Damme
639 Whispering Hills Rd, #805
Boone, NC 28607
MTC-00023927
From: Jerry Higdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I hope that the Justice Department will stick by the settlement it has
reached with Microsoft. I feel it's a fair and just settlement and I hope
that you urge the rest of the states who haven't yet settled to do so.
Microsoft has been put through the ringer for long enough and it's high
time to end this whole mess and let them get back to business. The
settlement is reasonable enough not to hurt them to the point where they
are forced to go out of business but is harsh enough to silence most of
their critics. For example, Microsoft will have to share information about
the internal workings of its Windows operating system, which will allow
computer makers to more easily install non-Microsoft software on Windows-
based machines. This is harsh, but it is still better than Microsoft being
broken up into little pieces. The settlement will appease all interests in
the Microsoft antitrust case. I support it, and hope to see if finalized
soon. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerry Higdon
MTC-00023928
From: vasily
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:05pm
Subject: Internet
Microsoft's doing it again; seems like it's trying to monopolize the net
with .NET. Hopefully you'll get ``em. (You wouldn't be in this mess if
IBM didn't get a rejection from the CP/M guys in the 1970-80s.) sorry
though; Anyway, good luck.
MTC-00023929
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed settlement
between the United States Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation
regarding the finding of antitrust activities of Microsoft.
I am highly concerned that through the predatory actions of Microsoft,
Microsoft products are the de facto standards for many areas of personal
and business computing and office work. The barriers to competition raised
by Microsoft through its intertwined operating system, network products,
and Office Suite make it nearly impossible for any competitors to arise in
these areas. I am personally quite disappointed in the quality of these
Microsoft products, and would be quite willing to purchase alternatives if
they existed. I believe that without remedy the situation with Microsoft
dominance of whatever product lines they choose will become worse.
I believe that the present remedy proposed by the DOJ will do nothing to
improve this situation, or curb Microsoft's predatory practices. In the
interest of brevity, I will discuss the one remedy that I find most
important. In an office environment, I find that the use of alternatives to
Microsoft products, (Macintosh, Linux, or Office alternatives) is limited
by the practical limitations of transferring data (email, documents, etc)
from a Microsoft platform to a competitive platform. That is, for me to
function in a modern office environment, any documents I send to others
must open flawlessly by Microsoft products; any documents sent to me by
Microsoft product users must be opened flawlessly by me. Since Microsoft
keeps its data standards proprietary, it is nearly impossible to develop a
100% compatible alternative.
Through its practices, Microsoft now dictates the de facto standards for
email, word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations. I would urge the
DOJ to find a remedy that would force Microsoft to make their format an
open standard, readily open to competitors to use. Microsoft would not be
forced to turn over sensitive information to competitors on their products;
rather, they would be compelled to enable functional competition within
data formats that they have made as industry standards through their
practices.
I am sensitive to Microsoft's claims that their know how in application
software should be preserved. I am much more interested in enabling
competitors to build programs that can compete with Microsoft by being
compatible with Microsoft file formats. Data must not be captive to one
company and format, but be transferable across different formats and
systems. The DOJ has it in its power to enable this competition into the
future. In any case, the current proposed settlement is horrible, so I do
urge its rejection.
Sincerely,
Paul Drzaic
Morgan Hill, California
MTC-00023930
From: lorraine snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05am
Subject: Mi
Please settle this unjustified court case. I am a customer of Microsoft and
many other software companies. I do not feel I was ever treated wrongly!
Microsoft does not charge more than other software in the industry.
Microsoft does not hurt Netscape or other companies. netscape sold for
Billions. I do not see that as being injured by Microsoft. It is time for
this country to help our economy by stopping hurting Microsoft! The
problems with the economy started with microsoft being drug into court
unjustly.
People stopped trusting the stock market. Now as things are beginning to
turn around, The BIG MONOPOLY ``AOL'' is at it again! Suing
Microsoft will not help the sagging economy!
PLEASE SETTLE THE MICROSOFT CASE and .....DO SOMETHING to STOP every one
who DOES NOT WANT COMPETITION to SUE, SUE, SUE !!!!!!
Lorraine Snyder
15018 SE Fairwood Blvd.
Renton, Wa. 98058
MTC-00023932
From: George Helmke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am no legal expert, but it seems like letting Microsoft off easy is the
lazy way out. They are in a position to do major damage to a healthy
marketplace, and their reach extends more every year. They have acted
illegally, and done so for years. That has been proven in court.
The U.S. government is the only body strong enough to create limits for a
company as powerful as Microsoft. If it looks the other way just because
Microsoft is big enough, and doesn't seem SO harmful, then an injustice has
been done.
Please do what is RIGHT.
Sincerely,
George Helmke
U.S. Citizen
MTC-00023933
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:08am
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
[[Page 27400]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David & Lisa Short
4340 State Route 193
Cherry Valley Township
Dorset, OH 44032
MTC-00023934
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:10am
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,
Denis Quinn
1578 11th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122-3615
MTC-00023935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:12am
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
I have been involved in computers and software systems for more then 20
years--I derive pleasure and profit from my knowlage and understanding
of the systems I use and support in my work.
I believe that the proposed settlement in the US vs Microsoft is a true
failure of the government to understand the issues at hand. It is not
simply an issue of monopoly powers at work within the market place; our
very future is at risk because of this monopoly. Here are a couple of
thoughts on how:
By wanting to control all media flow to ``customers'' via
broadband internet connectivity and/or computer access to information,
Microsoft will, in effect control the right to be heard in any forum or any
non- face to face contact. The EULA (End user licence agreement) for one of
thier products, Front Page 2000 contains language forbiding users to
express an opinion which shows or describes Microsoft in a negative way.
Our stock market and credit systems are suffering heavilly after a decline
in technology stocks; while this is normal and proper given the .com
foolishness, Microsoft still represents a huge, single basket for many many
too many eggs to be in.
The current conflict in Afghanistan is largely being won by knowlage much
like the gulf war was in 1991. By allowing a single entity (one which the
goverment has proven to be guilty of breaking its promises of conduct.)
control or at the very least ``responsibility'' for citizens
access to information and for thier voices to be heard seems very very
wrong. Especially as Microsoft has outright bought testimonials from
various technology press.
I believe a better solution or remedy should contain most if not all of the
following actions: Splitting Microsoft into 3 or more companies; an OS, a
services company and an application software company Preventing all non-OS
companies any ``inside'' knowlage of the OS code unless the same
agreement had been made with no fewer then 3 other companies Preventing the
marketing or delivery of products which do not meet IETF/IEEE
specifications for protocols which they utilize; end the embrace-and-
extend(pervert) stratagy which has led to so many competitors market place
failures.
Limiting the number of media channels any single company could own; tv,
cable, radio and major websites such as yahoo or msn.com as the FCC
currently does with broadcast stations. End the practice of application
preload with the OS (as would happen if the company were split.)
And, finally, as a last item, to require TRUTHFULL publishing of every
API(application programming interface) and system fuction call with every
licence of the OS sold (without additional cost to consumers) to facilitate
AT LEAST application competition.
John Antram
Cornwall, Vermont 05753
MTC-00023936
From: Richard E Wallis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Dear Sir:
I have recently received a solicitation from Microsoft encouraging me to
ask you and the Justice Department to wrap up the ongoing litigation. Their
stipulation is that Microsoft has gone above and beyond what the courts
have asked for and continuing the litigation would only hamper Microsoft's
ability to innovate; and invigorate the American economy. Unfortunately, I
disagree.
I do not oppose Microsoft's efforts to do business and to provide consumers
with software packages for their computers. What I do oppose is Microsoft's
apparent efforts to thwart the consumer's right to choose. Any consumer
should have the right to decide what kind of operating system, Internet
browser, office suite and email application they use. By wrapping its
software applications together Microsoft limits a consumer's ability put
together a software suite that is most comfortable for them. Ultimately,
the best scenario I can think of is for various computer system
manufacturers to offer consumers choices of software packages. Choices in
operating systems like Windows, Linux, or even Unix; choices in Internet
browsers like Netscape, Internet Explorer. or Opera; choices in offices
suites like Coral's Word Perfect or Microsoft's Word; or even in games. In
summary, I would like to encourage the Justice Department pursue its case
against Microsoft. The settlement should provide that Microsoft uncouple
its operating system and applications.
Sincerely,
Richard E Wallis
Honolulu, Hawaii
MTC-00023937
From: Lubo Diakov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:14am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this as a computer user who wishes to urge you to pursue any
and all remedies permitted under the law to force Microsoft to do what is
right. Their actions in the past have demonstrated to me (as undoubtedly
they have to others as well) that they have little or no regard for ethics.
Considering the restrictive and exclusionary contracts with both computer
manufacturers and end-users which have come to light during the legal
proceedings, the giving away of products at a loss to drive competitors
into bankruptcy, the bullying, the pressure tactics, the incessant PR spin
and advertisements which often amount to lies, I feel the most just remedy
is to break Microsoft up. But I am a realist, and know that sadly this
won't happen for practical and legal reasons.
Instead I propose you punish them with very stiff monetary fines, which can
only be repaid with money that is given ``no strings attached''
to purchase any computer equipment (including if the plaintiffs wish all-
non-Microsoft equipment) with no legal clauses or hidden conditions.
Further I suggest you reject any offer to ``give''
``free'' equipment, as undoubtedly you will receive Microsoft
products, which is not only not a punishment, it is a ``get out of
jail free'' card for Microsoft to expand its monopoly powers to arenas
which they have less or no foothold in currently, such as education.
Please note that even as you sue them about practices in the computer
industry, they continue to use the same (or worse) tactics to expand even
further in to non-PC areas like PDAs (PocketPC), game consoles (XBox),
Internet Access (MSN Broadband). Their non-PC rivals (Palm, Sony, AOL-Time
Warner) will undoubtedly tell (probably years from now) a tale similar to
that of their computer competitors--one of arm twisting and being
driven out of business by the sheer ruthlessness and remorselessness of a
corporation so convinced (myopically) that the world needs nothing but its
products, that it does anything it can (often just this side of legal, and
in many case because a lot of laws don't cover the ``information
age'') to prevail. The business equivalent of the
Taliban--``fundamentalist monopolists''.
You undoubtedly know plenty about Microsoft's violations of anti-trust law,
but allow me to summarize by listing some of the entities it victimized, in
most cases despite those entities having superior products to market before
Microsoft.
Sun Computers--Java
Apple Computer--Macintosh
[[Page 27401]]
Real Networks--Real Audio and Video
Apple Computer--Quicktime
Linux--various distributors and VARs, and the open-source community
worldwide
All these had products that dominated either because they were first in
their fields, or because were actually good (or both). Microsoft dominates
because it has the most money, and it can give things away until everyone
else folds and then charge as much as they want. Is this what America (and
the world) wants? I think not.
Finally I leave you with this tidbit, attributed to no other than Bill
Gates himself:
``Imagine the disincentive to software development if after months of
work another company could come along and copy your work and market it
under its own name...without legal restraints to such copying, companies
like Apple could not afford to advance the state of the
art.''--Bill Gates, 1983 (New York Times, 25 Sep 1983, p. F2)
MTC-00023938
From: Brent Casavant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00023938--0001
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002
Submitted to the United States Department of Justice, in accordance with
the public comment period provided by the Tunney Act, in regard to the case
United States vs. Microsoft (Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
Introduction
Comments upon the proposed Final Judgement in its whole
.......................................................
If there is one striking feature of this proposed Final Judgement, it is
the lack of any form of punishment or restitution imposed upon Microsoft
such that it forfeits the gains due to its anticompetitive practices. The
remedies therein provide only for behavioral modification and oversight,
but fail in any manner to deny Microsoft the fruits it has enjoyed from its
illegal behavior.
While I do not propose a specific punishment, I believe it is in the
interest of the United States, its citizens, and all commercial entitites
to discourage anticompetitive practices. Unless this proposed Final
Judgement is significantly strengthened the provisions will serve as little
more than a ``slap on the wrist''. This sends a clear message to
all monopolies that the law may be freely flouted and disregarded as long
as legal proceedings can be sufficiently drawn out to firmly enthrone the
monopoly in an unassailable market position. More importantly, this sends a
clear message to Microsoft that it may do so again at any time it should so
choose.
There is also a specific behavioral and punitive remedy which is notably
lacking from the proposed Final Judgement which should be considered for
inclusion. Microsoft has achieved large portions of its market dominance
through ``locking in'' end users to its proprietary application
(i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint) data file formats, and through making
incompatible changes to such formats, forcing end users into purchase of
new application software to conduct business with other parties.
This could be remedied through either of two means: Require Microsoft to
make available, in a timely manner, all information regarding application
file formats necessary for third parties to develop software which is
capable of interoperating with the Microsoft application software. Require
Microsoft to implement, as the default and preferred option, file formats
which are trivially reverse-engineered by third parties for the purpose of
interoperability.
In either case Microsoft should be required to assign licenses to any
intellectual property needed to properly implement software which can
interoperate with the Microsoft application software. There is another area
of general weakness in the proposed Final Judgement. Underlying the entire
judgement is a presupposition that only for-profit commercial entities will
enter into licensing agreements (either explicitly or through the purchase
of Microsoft products and services). However, there is a large and
increasing number of not-for-profit organizations which develop software
(typically so-called ``Open Source'' software) which is
distributed free of charge. Such organizations cannot in and of themself
wield the financial incentives necessary to cause Microsoft to provide them
the documentation or intellectual property rights necessary to implement
software which is interoperable with Microsoft products. While Microsoft
certainly has a reasonable right to expect compensation for its efforts,
research, development, and intellectual property, it is also clear that
they will use their monopoly position to choke out any competition from
these not-for-profit organizations. The proposed
MTC-00023935-0002
Final Judgement should be amended to provide for the release of information
necessary for interoperability to these not-for-profit organizations. This
is only one of the many ways in which amends can be made for the
anticompetitive practices of Microsoft, and to take some small bite out of
the fruits of their illegal behavior.
Comments upon specific provisions of the Proposed Final Judgement
.................................................................
Section III.E
The terms of this section are inadequate to address harms and disadvantages
already imposed upon third parties with regard to Communications Protocols.
Microsoft has demonstrated with regularity that it will modify existing
protocols, both those of its own design (i.e. the SMB protocol) and of
other widely accepted protocols (i.e. the Kerberos protocol), with tenuous
technical justification. While one cannot adequately judge Microsoft's
every intention in such matters, it is often clear that these decisions do
little more than lock out competetitors from interoperating with Microsoft
products.
As such, the remedy in Section III.E should be amended to cover existing
protocols for current Microsoft Windows Operating System Products.
This section remedy also fails to address the terms under which these
Communication Protocols must be made available to third parties. There is
no provision that such disclosures must be made under reasonable or fair
terms to the third party. This inadequacy should be addressed so as to
prevent Microsoft from circumventing the spirit of this order by an action
as simple as making the price of such information practically unobtainable
for all but the largest of ISVs.
Sections III.H.1 and III.H.2
Thes provisions are inadequate to the extent that they do not stipulate
that Microsoft must reasonably ensure the correct operation of the specific
Windows Operating System Product after these actions are taken. This
section should also restrict Microsoft from displaying alarming messages or
languages which would serve to dissuade end users from utilizing Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products.
Microsoft has demonstrated its willingness to deliberately compromise the
stability of their own software products in order to discourage the use of
third party software. This was demonstrated most clearly in the early
1990's when they implemented checks for the DR-DOS operating environment in
their Windows Operating System Products. In this case an alarming message
was displayed to end users which served to discourage use of the DR-DOS
product, and the Windows Operating System Product was (anecdotally)
deliberately designed to interoperate poorly with the DR-DOS product.
Section III.H.3
There is little technical justification for the arbitrary limit of 14 days,
after which Microsoft Operating System Products may automatically prompt
the end user to confirm alteration of an OEM's configuration. While it is
certainly justifiable to allow the user to cause the Operating System
Product to revert to a Microsoft-specified configuration, it is not
reasonable to automatically ask the user to confirm or prohibit this
reconfiguration.
As such, this provision should be amended as to prevent Microsoft from
implementing a system which prompts the user to restore Microsoft-specified
configurations, unless the end user has initiated a deliberate action to
MTC-00023938-0003
cause this to occur. That is to say, the end user should need to initiate
the action which causes a Microsoft specified configuration to be restored.
Section III.H.2 (second set of numbered items)
This section allows a Windows Operating System Product to invoke a
Microsoft Middleware Product in a case where the Non-Microsoft Middleware
Product fails to implement certain technical requirements. This section
should be amended to include language which prohibits the Windows Operating
System Product from taking this action due to additional technical
requirements imposed after release of the Non-Microsoft Middleware Product.
That is, Microsoft must be prevented from requiring ISVs to update
previously compliant (by the terms of this provision) products. This
limitation, however, should not apply in the case of a major revision of
the Windows Operating System Product.
[[Page 27402]]
Section V.B
Microsoft has demonstrated a remarkable ability to delay and hinder legal
proceeding against it. As such this provision should be amended to provide
for an indefinite limited term extensions of the Final Judgement while any
legal proceedings against Microsoft according to this provision are
underway. Such an amendment should also provide that the Final Judgement
will expire no earlier than one year after the date of termination of such
proceedings, in order to further ensure compliance.
Background and contact information ..................................
I am interested in this matter as a long-time technology enthusiast and
worker. My formal education is in computer and electrical engineering, and
my work experience and personal interests have given me a deep
understanding of the technical merits and considerations involved in
software development, particularly in the area of operating systems. I am
currently in the employ of a major computer systems manufacturer and
vendor, a competitor in some fields with Microsoft, with my engineering
work focusing on operating system software development.
Brent Casarant
3627 26th Avenue South
Minneapolis, PIN 55406
612-724-0293
[email protected]
Brent Casavant
[email protected]
http://www.angeltread.org/-bcasavan/
MTC-00023939
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:18am
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,
Truman J Gleason Jr
P O Box 2930
Pahrump, NV 89041-2930
MTC-00023940
From: Clark Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello. I am an independent software engineer (i.e., contractor) who lives
in Hillsboro, Oregon. I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft
Settlement.
I believe that the potential effects of the proposed settlement can be
easily judged by the responses from the monopolist (Microsoft) and its
adversaries (the nation's computer software industry): Microsoft is
delighted and the computer software industry thinks the settlement does
nothing to rein in Microsoft's abuses. Conversely, the last time I recall
that the United States successfully prosecuted a monopolist, the affected
party (AT&T) bitterly complained about the proposed remedy. The fact
that Microsoft thinks this settlement is wonderful should give the court
pause, to ask a very simple question:
Is the court being played by Microsoft?
In my opinion, the answer is a definitive ``Yes.'' In my opinion,
if the court does not take decisive action to punish this company for its
anticompetitive practices, then Microsoft will never again fear retribution
for its actions. I hope the court will recall the long list of companies
that Microsoft has crushed, including: WordPerfect (now Corel), Lotus,
Novell, Apple, Stac, and Netscape. If nothing is done to hobble this
monopolist, then once its ``punishment'' phase is over, Microsoft
will never, ever again fear government intervention and/or regulation.
After all, if a company gets convicted as a monopolist and walks away with
a ``delightful'' settlement, what should it worry about in the
future? Recall that when AT&T was broken up, the long distance market
was opened to competition, which lowered long distance rates to extremely
inexpensive rates. For example, I currently pay $0.05/minute for long
distance calls placed in the evenings and all day on weekends. If AT&T
still held the monopoly for long distance, I --know-- I would not
have access to $0.05/minute calls.
As things stand now, Microsoft is the AT&T of the software industry.
Every new release of its Windows operating system is the same price: $90-
$100 for an upgrade, $225 for a complete release.Every new release of its
office suite is the same price: $200-225 for an upgrade, $400 for a
complete release. Where is the competition? There is none, which is the
consequence of buying from a monopolist. The court has a chance to step in
here and squelch this monopoly. Please don't let Microsoft dictate the
terms of this settlement.
Respectfully,
Clark O. Morgan
346 NW Treglown Ct.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
([email protected])
MTC-00023941
From: James M. Corey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
MTC-00023941--0001
Hello. I'm an engineer currently working in the computer field. I received
my Master's degree several years ago, and am now raising a family in
Oregon.
Know that I have been following the adventures of Microsoft for over 15
years now, and for the past 9 years I have been acutely aware of disturbing
behavior evident in Microsoft's business practices. So I started to pay
more attention to them, and what I saw I did not like. For the past 5 years
now, I have avoided using their products, which is not an easy thing. I
hardly need to go into detail about the damage they have done to
technologically valuable initiatives such as the Java portability
initiative, the world-wide-web connectivity initiative, and now the public-
interest software initiative (by which I am referring to the recent trend
toward volunteer software projects by and for computer users, under the
open source licensing agreement that Microsoft has begun to lobby against).
The trouble they have caused for hundreds of specific competitors, large
and small, pales in comparison to the damage and stunted growth they have
caused to the industry in general, and thus, to the populace. I think we
can agree that for all its shortcomings, computer technology has brought
many benefits to the modern world. I take seriously the threat posed by
Microsoft to our national information infrastructure, and also the harm
they have done to the progress of the computer industry in general. I take
offense at their attempts to lay claim to the modest progress that has been
made, in many cases despite their own efforts.
You might think it odd to hear these comments from an employee of Intel, a
company seen as ``co-conspirator'' of Microsoft, at least in the
eyes of the PC consumer. Intel is a company that seeks to be selected by
consumers as a matter of choice, and indeed the consumers currently have
several choices in this regard. Intel has expressed interest in the
availability of similar choices in PC operating systems, such as with their
interest in NeXT Step and their interest (and investment) in RedHat.
However, these software ventures can not succeed in the current Microsoft-
controlled climate. So, Intel is stuck with Microsoft at the helm. In fact,
there is now a strong atmosphere of fear within the ``troops'' at
Intel regarding internal departure from Microsoft products, as though
Microsoft has the resources and inclination to chastise us. I can only hope
that such is not the case. However, apparently Microsoft has expressed
disapproval on several occasions regarding Intel projects that don't fit in
with Microsoft's plans, resulting in lost opportunities for Intel. I ask
you, if such large companies as Intel, IBM, and HP are frightened by
Microsoft, where does that leave the consumer? Unfortunately, the public
assumes our complicity is voluntary, but the truth is, it has not been
entirely voluntary, nor has it been very conducive to progress. Thus our
reputation suffers indirectly, by association.
But I seem to be beating a dead horse. By my understanding, the crimes of,
and harm caused by, Microsoft have been established. The issue is
apparently what response to provide. I read about the dismissal of Judge
Jackson with some distaste, but not nearly as much as when I heard the new
proposed penalty of giving Microsoft software to primary schools. As the
PENALTY? This seemed like a joke in very poor taste. The idea could only
have come from Microsoft. It is hard for me to understand how they
[[Page 27403]]
could be so lucky in escaping justice. It seemed almost as if they were
being rewarded rather than punished. Something is very wrong with the way
these events have been developing.
So I had my doubts when I went to review the proposed final judgment at
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, but I am glad to see it
seems to contain some restrictions. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
restrictive enough to be effective. Microsoft has
MTC-00023941-0002
continually acted in flagrant violation of the law; they obviously think it
is their right to act as they have acted. If they are not dissuaded more
effectively, two things will result. First of all, I fear others will
conclude that no one including the United States government can stand up to
Microsoft and their lawyers, which will lead others to fear Microsoft even
more than they already do. Secondly, it will continue a dangerous precedent
of tolerance, of which other large organizations may take note.
I notice that the protections afforded by the judgment are heavily slanted
toward middle-ware, which seems like an unnecessary distinction. Microsoft
has described web browsers as an intermediate platform and API for software
applications to run on, thus falling broadly under the category of middle-
ware, but this is heavily colored by their fear of how quickly a
combination of Java and a web browser could erode customers''
dependence on their own products. Yet, the main purpose of a web browser is
simply to provide a multimedia, hypertext interface to information on the
web. A viewer with one-way interaction, not an operating system. Nor any
kind of middle-ware, unless you consider a document viewer to be middle-
ware, as it is with a Microsoft Word virus. There has been, and continues
to be, a need for safe web browsers which limit the damage that can be
caused to the user's computer simply by viewing a document on the web. In
typical fashion, Microsoft ignores this simple need of the consumer in
favor of their own selfish need to usurp control of the web viewer (and
eventually web server) industry and prevent it from threatening their
customer lock-in. Consider, though, that the result is the same as for many
other important types of software in which they have taken an interest.
Movie software, for instance, is their current target. Soon, they will take
over that market and control it as they have so many others.
If for some reason they should find it convenient to portray it as middle-
ware, then their new operating systems would suddenly have an increased
emphasis on 3D, animated interaction, thus making the multimedia layer
integral to the operating system, and the computer software universe will
warp to their will. But I digress. The middle-ware distinction is
arbitrary.
Even so, if the protection must be limited to middle-ware, the restrictions
are so specific regarding which product and which scenario, that they will
soon be outdated and ineffective. Here are some specific points I came
across:
*. III in general, is much too kind in its careful elaboration of exactly
which scenarios Microsoft isn't allowed to retaliate in. It should instead
have simply barred Microsoft from retaliating against business partners for
any business choices they make, by mandating a fixed price, and prohibiting
the practice of selectively distributing copies of their operating system
as though the supply were limited. There was no mention of this latter
practice, as far as I know. III.H.1 is clearly addressed to one symptom of
the squeeze-out behavior. I fear that after so much worrying over one
particular tactic used by Microsoft, that they will simply emphasize other
tactics or invent new ones. The basic behavior of misusing their advantage
must be addressed, as well as these particular methods they have come to
rely on. The exceptions to III.H would appear necessary only from the
viewpoint that wishes to preserve the advantage of Microsoft middle-ware
over non-Microsoft middle-ware. The second exception, in particular, is so
open-ended and convenient for Microsoft, that I suspect it will undo even
the limited protection which III.H is meant to afford.
*. IV.B.10 and parts of IV.C.3 suggest a very limited disclosure of
Microsoft's dealings with the compliance enforcers (i.e. TC). Taken
together, the picture is that of a company whose run-ins with the law are
kept private. Of course this has the advantage
MTC-00023941-0003
of limiting impact to Microsoft's public image, but this is als0 a
disadvantage. By keeping such things private, an aspiring developer, or
even a consumer, is kept in the dark about dangerous situations that may be
quite relevant to their own involvement with Microsoft. Also I see no
reason why only officers and directors should be briefed regarding the TC.
Shouldn't all Microsoft employees be aware of the arrangement? It sounds so
secretive. If there is some other reason for such details, please forgive
my ignorance.
*. IV.B.8.b.i is illustrative of the surplus care which has been taken to
avoid impacting Microsoft. In effect if the TC wishes to talk to an
employee, it will likely be categorized as an interview, notice will have
to be served to Microsoft, and the employee will almost certainly be
accompanied by a Microsoft lawyer. Although I wouldn't dare to suggest that
anyone at the company would ever lie, on the record or off, I have to
wonder what kind of incriminating evidence one would expect to gain from
such a conference. From a theoretical point of view, I have some trouble
imagining how the employee's career could legally be defended from taking a
wrong turn if information were disclosed.
*. VI.N.ii--Limiting protection of non-MS middle-ware to those with
one million copies distributed during the previous year seems to imply that
only large, well-established players will be protected. New ventures must
then fight an uphill battle. Unfair.
*. V. The extension clause doesn't help much. Of course, 5 years is a long
time, but not long enough. Now, if one has to get court consensus to extend
by a year, I presume that the usual delay tactics could push the decision
itself past one year anyway. I would have thought that if the TC had to
lift one finger against Microsoft, that alone should be grounds for another
5 year extension, with no limit. I suppose the interest is in figuring out
how Microsoft will circumvent the measures in the short term, which may
well be the most pertinent question. These are examples of the things that
worry me when I read the judgment. I haven't the expertise to analyze the
document in great detail, and that is to be expected. So I leave you with
my impressions as a citizen. The proposed final judgment seems to have a
lot more language granting loopholes and exceptions to Microsoft, than it
contains restraints upon them. Having read this document, I fear that it is
not strong enough to stop Microsoft's criminal behavior. I am dissatisfied
with the judgment, even to the point that I felt slightly ill when I first
read it. People are joking that Microsoft has gotten off pretty easy, and
it does indeed look that way. I think Microsoft has had too much input into
the proposed final judgment.
If you want my recommendation, focus on the fact that Microsoft's lock on
the market, and its power over competitors, rests fundamentally on its
control of standards. The only way I know of to wrest that control from
them is to let an independent party, perhaps a government laboratory, to
write the standards and make them publicly available for all developers and
companies to work with. That would provide a positive and healthy result
from this massive embroilment. This should be done regardless of whether
Microsoft is to escape direct penalization.
As a prologue, after writing the above, I checked on the web for other
opinions on the settlement, and it appears that I naively missed many
deeper problems. In order that my correspondence not be unduly influenced,
I have not rewritten it, but the situation is worse than I realized. As
worded, the judgment may even work in Microsoft's favor, rather than merely
failing to curtail. Please, do not let this travesty continue unchecked.
James M. Corey
MTC-00023941-0004
[email protected]
Intel, Ronler Acres Campus (Oregon)
MTC-00023942
From: David Stoddard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
As a graphic designer and a college teacher I deal with web page production
on a regular basis. It is my experience that Microsoft's web browser
Internet Explorer has default settings which are designed to force
designers to depend on Microsoft products for web page development.
By setting the default size of html text to a large size Microsoft insures
that text will appear too large and therefore may cause some designs which
depend on sliced images in tables to have gaps or otherwise be distorted.
To compensate for this designers may have to reduce the size of type to
such a small size that it becomes difficult to read on other browsers. This
effectively makes it difficult to design for any browser but Explorer and
makes using non Microsoft
[[Page 27404]]
development tools require extra steps. Since the other development tools
are often more intuitive to use than the Microsoft tools, not going through
the extra steps requires designers to use less effective products.
Undermining the standard in order to control the market seems to be
Microsoft's main method for success. The strategy seems to be irritation
over innovation, This is such a bad practice. Internet Explorer is a great
product. So, I can't tell if it is greed or paranoia that motivates
Microsoft to attempt to control all aspects of the web where software is
concerned.
Practices such as this should be regulated or punished. Unfortunately, no
one is in a position to punish Microsoft in the market place. It would be
good if government would do its job. If corporations could be trusted to do
the right thing we would not need government. I think we need to see
something better than a slap on the wrist or rewarding Microsoft by giving
them a sure method of getting their products into schools without
competition. How does this change things for the better?
David Stoddard
a concerned citizen
MTC-00023943
From: Ethan Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a proven monopoly. Its illegal practices are a detriment to
innovation. Microsoft's continuance as a monopoly, which the current
settlement has assured, will be a hindrance to the market, not an aid.
Sincerely,
Ethan Larson
MTC-00023944
From: L. C. Rees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. The PFJ
is a pardon, yet no sentence has been given. Pardons follow sentences,
correcting injustice, yet Microsoft has suffered no injustice. The Findings
of Fact say Microsoft committed a crime, yet, in the PFJ, we see no
sentence, we see no punishment, we barely see crime. The crime is there. No
pardon, no ``settlement'', can wipe it clean. Microsoft's crime
is treason.
It calls convenience at the price of security ``adding ease of use to
their products''. I call it giving aid and comfort to the enemies of
the United States.
It calls hiding security holes from its customers ``keeping critical
information in the hands of responsible parties''. I call it adhering
to the enemies of the United States.
It calls selling products so porous they beg to be breached
``enhancing shareholder value''. I call it levying war upon the
United States. Is the gunmaker responsible for its gun's crimes? The
gunmaker can be excused: a gun is designed to kill. Software is not but
crimes committed with software can be greater; guns can kill people,
software can kill nations.
Microsoft bears greater guilt than the gunmaker. Its crime stems not from
conscious design but from conscious neglect, making it more explicit and
more damning.
Microsoft is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
Through its neglect of security, compounded by bottomless arrogance,
Microsoft has left this country vulnerable to those who would destroy it.
It has committed treason in spirit if not in fact. Victory is not a crime.
Victory rotting the nation's foundations is. Microsoft's victory left
behind a brittle software ecosystem with gaping holes. The price of total
victory is total vulnerability. The software infrastructure of our
government and business lies open to all comers. Enemies of democracy are
ever active. Their hold over the minds of their followers gives them
greater focus in the short run than democracies.
Democracies win in the long run but in the short they lack focus. The
United States slumbers happily, free from history; our blessing, our curse.
In the past we had time to react. That time is over. The world is ever
smaller, ever faster. The margin for error is gone. We cannot see every
threat. We cannot attack every shadow. We must eventually man the defenses
and just wait.
The terrorist has total initiative, the gift of his madness; he can choose
his point of attack. It helps if the walls deterring his attack aren't
labeled ``Kick Me''.
Microsoft's self-declared jihad is ``ease of use''. Ease of use
is a freedom, true. In a networked world, however, the road to hell is not
only paved but greased with this sort of good intention. The freedoms of a
standalone machine are different than those of a machine tethered to the
world. Microsoft is oblivious to this. They act as if every machine is an
island unto itself.
Defenders of Microsoft quote Ben Franklin's dictum that ``He who gives
up a little freedom for greater security will get neither freedom or
security''. Freedom to be raped because Microsoft dropped your
trousers is no freedom at all. You must be secure before you can appreciate
ease of use. Microsoft's ease of use is synonymous with aid and comfort,
aid and comfort to the enemy. No dancing paper clip will save you when the
gates are breached.
It's said Sparta needed no walls because its virtue protected it. In truth,
Sparta's streets and houses grew so twisted over the years that they were
impenetrable. Perhaps Microsoft products with their tortuous mazes of
accumulated source code are like Sparta. Perhaps this confusion is our best
defense against invasion. It wouldn't be Microsoft's virtue.
If you're native to the maze, stuck with it, it helps to know where you can
defend your native city. Microsoft has denied that knowledge. They
condescendingly tell you that they will guard the city while you go about
your business. With their track record, would you trust them?
Microsoft has cast its lot with the enemies of democracy. Openness is a key
ingredient of democracy. Microsoft abhors openness. Too much knowledge is
dangerous for you, it tells its customers. We will protect you. Trust us.
In their heart, Microsoft is adhering to the enemies of the United States,
with their doctrines of ``We Know Best''. Microsoft's greatest
treason is its war on choice. By destroying choice, they have left us
vulnerable to attack. As the only choice for many needs, many Americans are
locked into Microsoft's products with their Swiss cheese defenses,
including critical portions of our defense infrastructure.
Microsoft's unyielding war on its competition has become war on the United
States. In burning their enemies, Microsoft burned down the forest. Those
left behind can only shiver in the cold of a suddenly wide open world.
Choices do remain. Microsoft's incessant manipulations of the market so
warped its fabric that no commercial competitors survive. The only
opposition is a social movement, open source software, that can't be
crushed with tactics available to private corporations. Its products are
free. Countries at the periphery, with less reliance on Microsoft products,
will adopt and adapt them and move ahead less cost. American organizations,
reliant on Microsoft, will be left behind, with costs to our national
competitiveness as well as our national defense.
Microsoft will fail. Its best competitors are free. In the end, you can't
beat free. But we can spare our country the cost of going down with
Microsoft's losing rearguard action by easing the transition to cheaper,
more secure software. The roads to adapting to the Microsoft-free world of
the future are closed. Government action at this point can open them,
allowing organizations who wish to adapt to new technologies the freedom to
change. The ability to change is our greatest strength. Microsoft threatens
that. Treason should be suppressed. Microsoft should be required to put
security over convenience, be it theirs or the consumers, open their code
so that the holes can be exposed and fixed in the light of day, and they
should be forced to ship products that don't leave us vulnerable to foreign
threats.
If every Microsoft shareholder has to lose one hundred dollars for every
illgotten dollar Microsoft made, such are the wages of sin. But the future
of this nation should not be held hostage to a criminal private
corporation. Microsoft is not the fulfillment of the American dream, it is
its negation.
Lynn C. Rees
Salt Lake City, UT
January 24, 2002
MTC-00023945
From: Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As computer users, my wife, Grace, and I seriously urge you to reject the
Microsoft settlement. From the many reports we have read, we believe that
the proposed settlement is primarily aimed at extending Microsoft's
stranglehold on the computer market to our very significant detriment, and
to the detriment of all computer users. We cannot buy a computer without
paying a fee, through the vendor, to Microsoft, even though we prefer to
use another operating system.
We note in passing that Microsoft has confused the whole browser issue by
using
[[Page 27405]]
the term EXPLORER for two very different blocks of software. The plain
MICROSOFT EXPLORER is essentially a block of software that provides for
calling up various other programs. The MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER is the
browser that they bundle in with the operating system. Two very different
sets of functions whose names appear to be deliberately chosed to confuse
the courts about the separability of the browser function from the
operating system.
It is this kind of double dealing that has changed us from being Microsoft
supporters into users of anything BUT Microsoft products.
Moe Aitel & Grace Aitel
3126 West Ox Road
Herndon VA 20171-1908
[[email protected]]
MTC-00023946
From: Phil Stracchino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a computer user and tech industry worker thoroughly familiar with
Microsoft's business practices, I am highly dissatisfied with the Justice
Department's proposed remedy in the Microsoft anti-trust case. The proposed
settlement amounts to nothing more than another consent decree of the kind
that Microsoft has brazenly and openly flouted in the past, and having
Microsoft heavily represented on the board in charge of policing its own
compliance is, indeed, putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Microsoft's business and coding practices have stifled, not fostered,
innovation and competition in the industry. Microsoft wouldn't know
innovation if it stumbled across it in a bowl of breakfast cereeal. The
legacy of Microsoft is a nationwide business infrastructure that never saw
a virus it didn't like, that can be hacked into by an industrial thief, an
Islamic terrorist, or a bored teenager with equal ease. Recent attacks made
possible by Microsoft's appallingly cavalier disregard of security,
including the Nimda and Code Red worms, have cost American businesses
billions of dollars in lost revenues and repair costs. Meanwhile, Microsoft
ruthlessly crushes its competitors and shamelessly steals product ideas it
likes the sound of, relying upon its vast financial resources to stall any
lawsuit until the theft victim runs out of money. The proposed remedy in
this case will allow it to continue doing so with impunity.
My understanding is that most of the state Attorney Generals involved in
the Microsoft suit have rejected the Justice Department settlement
proposal, and are seeking independent action. I am told that even 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. So many dissenters, so highly placed, probably have a point.
Perhaps someone should pay attention to it before it's too late. Microsoft
is, in considerable part, behind many of the problems facing the tech
sector today, and this politically-motivated proposed settlement says to
innovators in the tech sector that the government doesn't care, that
Microsoft can do as it pleases so long as it has more money than those it
wrongs. This is not the message that this administration should be sending.
The tech sector economy is grim enough already. Don't make it worse by
giving Microsoft carte blanche to loot and pillage at will.
Phil Stracchino
Tracy, California
Former tech sector worker, jobless since 8/31/2001
Fight Back! It may not be just YOUR life at risk.
phil stracchino
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00023947
From: steve ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:32am
Subject: citizen's opinions
To whom it may concern:
I see Microst as an unfair competetor in the economy, and a still growing
monolopy. This fine government has the power to regulate them. I beg of
you, please do.
Stephen Ray
1905 Abernathy Rd.
Lynnville TN 38472 --
MTC-00023948
From: Dim-skies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:34am
Subject: aol vs. microsoft
Dears Sirs,
I think the AOL lawsuit is just another attempt to bleed a successful
business, when you can't compete. I feel that a monopoly is when the
consumer has nowhere else to turn. If I don't like my cable, or phone
company, where do I go? Granted, other OS's aren't as pervasive, but they
are available. That is hardly the same as ``not available''.
AOL paid big money for a loser, and now they want help. What has happened
to America? This is just another shameful example running to the Government
for help for everything, including stupidity.
Sincerely,
Tom Wong
Port Orchard, WA 98366
MTC-00023949
From: Mark Moeller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
Microsoft has clearly acted in its own best interests at the expense of
other businesses and the public. And while their crimes have been well
recognized by the technology and courts for years, they have managed to
continue to benefit while playing tricks with the legal system and stalling
for time. Enough is enough.
The damage must stop. I strongly support the following statements. The PFJ
SHOULD terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly. The PFJ SHOULD deny to
Microsoft the profits of its past behavior and penalize them. The PFJ
SHOULD prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
Regards,
Mark F. Moeller
2108 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94115
MTC-00023950
From: Mike Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:41am
Subject: allowing a Microsoft monopoly
To allow Microsoft to do exactly as they please will have profound,
negative effects on the Internet, and on computing in general.
Microsoft can, and will, stifle competition in more and more spheres of
Information Technology, just as they have done with the web browser market.
Their current aim is not just application or OS competition, it is control
over the Internet. With their ``.net'' project, they clearly wish
to create an environment where one must use their kind of browser, and
their OS, to access as many sites as they are able to influence. MSN and
their affiliates are the first case--but by manipulating the web
browser, OS and .net environments, Microsoft will try to make the World
Wide Web as inhospitable a place as possible for anyone not 100% compliant.
There are precedents: in the period 1997-1998, one had to use IE to
access Microsoft's gaming site. Until mid-2001, one had to use IE to
download 128-bit encryption strength NT service packs--which IT and
Tech Support types must do quite often. Also, given that IE is installed by
default on Windows, that makes it that much easier to use, for example this
e-mail is written in a Java window in IE.
The worst danger, in my view, of Microsoft monopolizing much of the
Internet, is it will naturally stifle competition--Microsoft does not
suffer competition to exist unless they are safely niche (such as Apple
Computer). Other firms doing Internet ventures may not be able to develop
or adapt as quickly, as they will have to work around whatever Microsoft
wants to do--just as exists now in the desktop application industry.
Consider the day when Cisco may have to develop around Microsoft's
strategy.
The Internet was built by people passionate about quality product for its
own sake, people like Jon Postel. I see the Internet becoming stagnant in
the near decade, that which was the economic engine of the 90's and is now
a cornerstone of prosperity worldwide.
Please reach a restrictive conclusion in the current Microsoft anti-trust
case, ideally breaking up the monopoly. Otherwise, the corporation may
become more powerful, more insidious, more corruptive than anyone now cares
to imagine.
Thank you,
Mike Graham
registered Independent, Santa Clara County CA
MTC-00023951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 27406]]
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,
Grace Stewart
5312 Bethany Way
Lakeland, FL 33810-1827
MTC-00023952
From: J. Lucha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was in complete shock and outrage when I first read the Proposed Final
Judgment. I've been a computer programmer for the last six years, and have
been a computer hobbyist for more than twenty.
I have used virtually every type of computer software and hardware during
those years from Microsoft and its competitors. Unlike the general public,
I have first hand experience with most of the products that Microsoft has
destroyed over the years through anti-competitive practices. In many cases,
the competitors product was superior. There is no doubt in my mind that
Microsoft has held the computing industry back more than ten years. Our
world will never know what could have been achieved had the computing world
not been crippled. The settlement fails to provide the remedy needed for a
healthy, productive and competitive technological industry.
In fact, it may be argued by many that the settlement actually strengthens
Microsoft's monopoly and allow them to bully those that compete with them.
Here are just a few of the many points where the Proposed Final Judgment
fails:
1. First and foremost, the settlement does not address Microsoft's ill-
gotten gains. Microsoft is allowed to keep billions of dollars acquired
illegally. How many convicted thieves are allowed to keep their stolen
goods?
2. The three person technical panel created by the settlement has some
glaring problems. The first problem is Microsoft gets to select one member
of the panel, who in turn has a say as to who the third member is. Sounds
like Microsoft basically controls the panel. The second problem is that the
panel members are not allowed to disclose any information to the public. If
Microsoft is in any violation, the public will not know.
3. No punishment for the executives of Microsoft that knowingly and
willingly led their company into law breaking actions. A strong message
must be sent to businesses that unlawful and unethical behavior will not be
tolerated. Without such a deterrent, business are encouraged to act in
whatever means will lead to their greatest profits. The burden then lies
upon the victims. I do not want my tax dollars constantly spent correcting
wrongs that might not have occurred if the proper deterrents were in place.
4. While the API's used to communicate with the operating system will be
documented and released, it will only be done for companies and business
that Microsoft deems have a viable business. The Free Software movement has
been acknowledged by Microsoft to be its biggest competition, yet they have
publicly stated that businesses with a basis in Free Software don't have a
viable business model. So, their toughest competition is excluded from the
API's to begin with.
5. The duration of the restrictions is a mere 5 years, which is not a
significant amount of time to reverse the detrimental damage caused by
Microsoft. As a software developer myself, I can assure you it will take at
least five years before a competitor can accumulate the necessary business
infrastructure (funding, staff). It would probably take another five years
before a useable product is developed. Also, if Microsoft is found to be in
violation, there is no extension to the duration of the restrictions.
6. The settlement is full of loopholes for Microsoft to take advantage of.
The main ones being the definitions defined in the Proposed Final Judgment
such as API. I also find it alarming that the definitions have already been
altered from the ones used in the ``Findings of Facts''.
Microsoft has been found guilty in previous court hearings, and used the
loopholes contained within those settlements to render them useless. What
good will it have done to have spent so much taxpayer money, and have
nothing to show for it. For examples of ways in which Microsoft may twist
the meaning of the definitions to render them useless please read http://
www.os2hq.com/archives/arch46.htm.
7. The settlement does not address the file formats used by Microsoft's
Office programs. With each new version of Microsoft's office suite
programs, they change the format of the documents created. This creates a
barrier to entry for competing office software. It is also a means to force
current customers in a never ending upgrade cycle, where they purchase the
upgrade to be able to read the files sent to them by others, even though
they themselves do not need the added features of the newer version.
A Final judgment that would be in the best interest of the consumer might
include some of the following:
1. Microsoft would have to give a sum of at least $5 billion in cash to the
Free Software Foundation. One of the goals of the Free Software Foundation
is to support the development of software that is a viable alternative to
Microsoft's products. Microsoft has publicly acknowledge d that Open Source
is their most viable competitor. True competition can be brought about by
helping fund the independent developers found in the Open Source community.
2. Microsoft would have to pay the legal expense of any business that
brings a legal case against Microsoft during the duration of the
restrictions. This would prevent Microsoft's typical defense against
competitor lawsuits: stalling. There are numerous cases that have never
been brought against Microsoft because the company or individual didn't
have the financial resources for the long, drawn out case that Microsoft's
legal army executes.
3. All Microsoft executives and managers would have to enroll in a
University business law and ethics class every year at the individuals
expense for the duration of the settlement. They must attain a grade of of
at least a ``B'' or they must retake the course the following
semester/quarter.
4. Any specification or API that must be known to offer a competing product
must be well documented at least six months prior to Microsoft's release of
the product. If the specification is changed, then the product released
date must also be delayed.
5. Any contract between Microsoft and the major OEM's (Gateway, Compaq,
Dell), ISV's (AOL, CompuServe), etc., must be approved by an independent
panel.
6. If Microsoft is to bundle application software such as Internet Explorer
with their operating system software, they must also include a competing
product such as Netscape Communicator.
7. The true price of Microsoft's applications and operating systems must be
listed as a line item when purchasing computers. Currently the costs of
Microsoft's products are bundled into the hardware costs, and the consumer
is unaware of the true price paid for the Microsoft product. If the price
is listed, a consumer that feels it is too much, will inquire about
alternatives.
If we set forth laws, and do nothing when those laws are broken, then there
is no point to have our society. Microsoft has violated the law, but the
Proposed Final Judgment does nothing but ask them not to violate them any
more.
James Lucha
Programmer/Analyst
Moreno Valley, CA
E-Mail: [email protected]
MTC-00023953
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I have resided on this planet for a series of decades. I have managed to
live through the era of governmental regulation of monopolies such as
railroads, steel, oil, airlines, telephones, and utilities. And I have seen
the results. Competition unfet-tered by regulation works well, as Adam
Smith predicted. But when the legal system enters the economic arena, it is
a sore losers contest where only the legal profession benefits.
I have used and abused both browser systems, and like Beta-Max and V H S,
one will survive....BUT LET IT BE THE CONSUMER, not the courts which
determine this end. I have always had a distinct distaste for the mink in
the duck pond which destroys purely for the sake of destruction. And that
is the aim of AOL in this matter...Despicable at best.
[[Page 27407]]
Sincerely,
Craig G. Pause
&
Trinidad Brown
Note: Our family does own shares in both corporations...I may dump AOL on
ethical grounds alone.
MTC-00023954
From: Ronald Tomlinson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Tomlinson
317 Dicenzo Blvd.
Marlboro, MA 01752
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats
and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ronald Tomlinson
MTC-00023955
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am writing to express my concern regarding the settlement terms agreed to
by Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice. It is my opinion
that the settlement will do nothing to dissuade the leaders of company with
a pathetic history of anti-competitive and illegal behavior from continuing
in their ways, nor does it provide any relief for consumers who have seen
every component associated with personal computers except the operating
system improve in both value and reliability over the past twenty years. It
is virtually impossible to buy or use a computer at this point in time
without incurring costs directly related to Microsoft's dominating position
in the industry, a position which has been found repeatedly to have been
gained in part through illegal means.
Any effective remedy must at the very least fulfill these objectives: 1. It
must prohibit Microsoft from further increasing its reach into other
markets simply because it has gained control of the computing environment
to an almost exclusive extent through illegal and anti-competitive means.
2. It must force Microsoft to allow true competition to be restored to the
computing industry. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to,
requiring Microsoft to abide by published standards and protocols and to
publish its internal protocols and formats for utility software products
(such as Word, Excel and other Microsoft Office packages), with substantial
punishment specified for any infractions.
3. It must provide suitable punitive measures to discourage future illegal
and anti-competitive actions. This is essential, I believe, not only to
finally convince Microsoft of their obligation to compete fairly, but also
to prevent other corporations from attempting to dominate using illegal and
anti-competive tactics as Microsoft has.
Any settlement terms which do not encompass the three objectives listed
above would deeply affect my confidence in the government's willingness to
ensure that our free market operates fairly for all. The settlement which
the Department of Justice has approved does little to convince me that
individuals unhindered by ethical standards cannot do business without
regard for legal boundaries, provided they possess sufficient wealth to
influence those elected to enforce the law.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Collins
1124 E. San Carlos Way
Chandler, AZ 85249 --
[email protected]
CC:Michael Collins
MTC-00023956
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree.
Gruss/kind regards
Jens Eike Jesau
Product Design Engineer
Torrington Ingersoll Rand
[email protected]
http://www.torrington.com
MTC-00023957
From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:02am
Subject: Microsoft
To whom it may concern:
I hope the government will see that because of Microsoft many companies are
not around to offer input to this case, they were either bought or run out
of business by the unethical business practices of Microsoft. It seems the
pages of history that stuck with Mr Gaits were the antitrust laws, he seems
to have used all of the things that required these laws to bring his
company to where it is. Please send a message that smaller companies can
exist without the fear of being put out of business by the likes of the
Microsoft.
It is difficult to say how the ``business'' practices of
Microsoft have changed the course of software and personal computers as we
cannot turn the clock back and find the innovation that may have been lost.
Microsoft is not about innovation, only control, power, and money. The
products that Microsoft has, were bought--not created. If you control
the standard, there is no reason to progress. The major changes in there
products have been in the area of controlling software theft, infringement
on the privacy of the consumer that uses their products and promoting there
own interest. (Such as blocking the products of other companies by
controlling the OS to their own advantage).
I would also like to offer this comment I overheard at a computer trade
show. An attendee commented on the T-shirts that the Microsoft employees
were warring at the show saying ``those look just like the shirts worn
by ???? company at the last show'', the reply by the Microsoft
employee was ``We are Microsoft, we will steal anything.'' I
include this as a comment on the mindset of Microsoft.
Netscape is still active, but as a part of a larger company, not the small
innovative company that woke the wrath of the giant. They had a plan to be
in business, to make money. They didn't have the means to compete with the
bank account of Microsoft. Please send a message, and please don't let
Microsoft choose how to compensate for its crime. Thank you RJ
MTC-00023958
From: martha szoke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
MTC-00023958_0001
To whom it may concern,
We support the Bush administration on the settlement of the microsoft
dispute. In our opinion, Microsoft puts out an excellent product and all
the monies being spent in litigation only hurts the taxpayers.
Thank you. Sincerely,
Dennis and Martha Szoke
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
MTC-00023958_0002
MTC-00023959
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:08am
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
[[Page 27408]]
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,
KATHLEEN EMARD
405 W. SYCAMORE ST.
ANAHEIM, CA 92805-2638
MTC-00023960
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:09am
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,
Sandra McCorkle
2434 Apsis Ave
San Jose, CA 95124
MTC-00023961
From: Matthew Coughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00023961-0001
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As a software engineer and a US citizen, I wish to comment on the following
aspects of the proposed Microsoft settlement:
Lack of a meaningful punishment
The settlement in the US v. Microsoft anti-trust trial lacks any form of
meaningful punishment for Microsoft's past illegal behavior. There is no
fine or structural remedy being imposed on Microsoft that discourages them
or other companies from engaging in such activities.
The only clear penalty for non-compliance by Microsoft during the 5-year
probationary period is an additional 2 years of probation. There are no
obvious penalties for further non-compliance by Microsoft during the 5-year
period or during the 2-year extension. This offers Microsoft no meaningful
incentive to restrict or modify their future business practices.
IV.B.10. ``No member of the TC [Technical Committee] shall make any
public statements relating to the TC's activities.''
IV.B.9. ``Each TC member [...] shall sign a confidentiality agreement
prohibiting disclosure of any information obtained in the course of
performing his or her duties as a member of the TC [...] to anyone other
than Microsoft, the Plaintiffs, or the Court.'' The Technical
Committee (TC), designed to ensure that Microsoft complies with the
behavorial restrictions during their 5- to 7-year probationary period, has
a public gag order, preventing them from reporting any illegal business
practices to the general public.
IV.B.3. ``the Plaintiffs as a group and Microsoft shall each select
one member of the TC, and those two members shall then select the third
member'' Microsoft chooses 1 of the 3 members of the Technical
Committee, and the person they choose has a say in choosing 1 of the other
2, allowing Microsoft to control a majority of the Technical Committee. Why
should Microsoft be allowed to have a say in even a single member of a
Technical Committee that's designed solely for the purpose of policing
them?
Recurring theme of Microsoft setting the terms of their own conduct
restrictions
Why is it that Microsoft, a convicted illegal monopolist, and one with a
history of disregarding a prior consent decree, is being allowed to define
the restrictions on their conduct? How would the public react if convicted
thieves and murderers were allowed to decide for themselves the
restrictions on their conduct? Why should it be any different in the
business world?
III.J.2. ``third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test
for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications
for use of the API or interface'' If the third-party verification has
to be approved by Microsoft, and if it's based on Microsoft's own
specifications, then Microsoft effectively controls the verfication
process; they can abritrarily assign whatever specifications they choose,
whether or not the specifications are relevant and necessary for the API or
interface. They could establish a verification process that no company or
entity would be able to pass successfully, thereby allowing them to avoid
disclosing APIs, Documentation, and Communications Protocols to any company
or entity.
III.C.2. ``provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical
specifications established by Microsoft'' If Microsoft is allowed to
determine the technical specifications, as well as what constitutes
``reasonable'' technical specifications, then they are free to
arbitrarily make their technical specifications as restrictive and
prohibitive towards their competitors as they see fit. They could
effectively exclude all of their competitors.
III.J.1. ``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 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''
If Microsoft claims that an area of their code base has any functionality
related to security, Microsoft does not have to provide the APIs,
Documentation, and Communication Protocols for that area. As such if
Microsoft adds or claims to add security-related functionality to every
area of their code base, they would not have to provide APIs,
Documentation, and Communication Protocols for any area of their code base.
III.D. ``via the Microsoft Developer Network (``MSDN'') or
similar mechanisms'' Why do the architectural mechanisms have to be
similar to MSDN? Who determines what constitutes ``similar
mechanisms''? This presents a barrier to entry for any architecture
that is not closely modeled after MSDN, and potentially presents a barrier
to entry for all non-MSDN architectures. III.D. ``In the case of a new
major version of Microsoft Middleware'' Who decides what constitutes a
major version? What if Microsoft officially refers to all future releases
of their Middleware as minor versions, or what if they use some terminology
other than ``major version''? What if Microsoft stops officially
distinguishing different versions of middleware --which may
conceivably happen once they move their software to a subscription model?
III.D. ``obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a
Timely Manner''
Is Microsoft free to decide for themselves what constitutes a ``timely
manner''? Can they arbritrarily choose any amount of time as they see
fit?
MTC-00023961-0003
The settlement does not address open-source software and non-profit
organizations. III.J.2. ``has a reasonable business need'',
``meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business'' If the
business-viability standards are established by Microsoft, then Microsoft
has free reign to arbitrarily choose for itself what companies or entities
are entitled to their APIs, Documentation, and Communications Protocols.
Microsoft would likely exclude any company or entity that is not intending
to make money directly off the usage of their software. This would allow
them to exclude most open-source software projects and non-profit
organizations.
Furthermore, if Microsoft decides that for a company or entitity to have a
viable business the company or entitity must not be competing against them,
then they could exclude all of their competitors. III.J.2. ``willful
violation of intellectual property rights'' Microsoft has previously
defined the GNU General Public License (GPL) as an ``intellectual
property destroyer''. If Microsoft is allowed to determine what
constitutes ``willful violation of intellectual property
rights'', then by their definition of the GPL, any company or entity
that uses or supports GPL software engages in willful violation of
intellectual property rights; thus, Microsoft
[[Page 27409]]
would not have to disclose APIs, Documentation, or Communications Protocols
to any company or entity that uses any GPL software.
The settlement does not address OEMs that provide computers without a
Windows Operating System Product. III.A.2. ``shipping a Personal
Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a
non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one
Operating System''
What about shipping a computer with a single non-Windows Operating System
Product? The above section does not prevent Microsoft from retaliating
against an OEM if the OEM provides some computers that have only a single
non-Windows Operating System Product on them.
III.C.1. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems
from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or
similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating
System Product.
What about providing a computer without a Windows Operating System Product?
The above section does not prevent Microsoft from restricting OEM licenses
if the OEM provides some computers that do not have a Windows Operating
System Product on them.
The settlement does not address the disclosure of file formats. One of the
strongest monopolies Microsoft is able to leverage is that of their Office
file formats. Without full disclosure of file formats, Microsoft can
continue to extend the existing barriers to entry in the office software
space, by using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to create file
formats that cannot be legally reverse-engineered.
Worse than doing nothing, the settlement appears to legalize Microsoft's
business practices
After Ronald Reagan took office for his first term as president, the US
Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped the running anti-trust case which had
been made against IBM by the previous administration(s). While G.W. Bush
was running for president, he made it clear that he would side with
Microsoft on their anti-trust case, by saying he would ``favor
innovation over legislation'', echoing Microsoft's own PR line about
the trial. With the precedent having been set by Reagan, it seemed certain
that the US DOJ would drop the anti-trust case against Microsoft if G.W.
Bush were elected president.
Rather than dropping the anti-trust case, the DOJ has chosen to pursue a
settlement that puts on the appearance of reasonable punishment, while
allowing Microsoft to determine what restrictions they must abide by. This
brings the risk of effectively legalizing Microsoft's business practices,
so long as their actions don't conflict with the behavioral restrictions
imposed by the settlement--the restrictions that Microsoft themselves
determined.
Significantly threatens the credibility of the US justice system Microsoft
and other companies, as well as the general public, are being given the
message that the government will tolerate illegal business practices from
companies that are able to wield sufficient financial, political, and
public relations might. Is this the message that the US justice system
should send to the public?
Sincerely,
Matthew Kendall Coughlin
2701 Brommer Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
USA
Software Engineer
MTC-00023961--0005
MTC-00023962
From: Andrew Shearer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Settlement: Not Strong Enough
There have been many essays already written that point to the weaknesses of
the current Microsoft antitrust settlement. Many of the weaknesses are the
same as those present in the original consent decree, Microsoft's
noncompliance with which the Justice Department had to spend so much effort
in court trying to establish: it mainly told Microsoft to start obeying the
law, without penalties or damages for past violations, and even then
contained loopholes that rendered it ineffective. (Some columnists have
even raised the specter of new immunities from antitrust law as long as
Microsoft is careful to keep to the letter of the settlement while
exploiting its loopholes.) I won't go into those arguments, except to state
that the settlement is widely viewed as a win for Microsoft, even though
court's decision largely sided with the Justice Department. There are
additional arguments I could make, but I'll choose just one: the
implication that a settlement such as this is good for the economy, better
for it than if the Justice Department had kept on fighting.
On the day the settlement was announced, people from the Justice Department
implied and Microsoft executives explicitly stated that given the state of
the economy, it was the right thing to do. The clear implication was that
what's bad for Microsoft would be bad for the economy. Therefore, being
tough on Microsoft would worsen the outlook for everyone. This assumes that
the economy exists largely inside Microsoft. In fact, I can think of few
things worse for the economy than an uncontrolled monopoly over something
so crucial to American businesses as computers.
It's in Microsoft's best interest to keep their status quo, which in its
eyes is a monopoly based on the Windows platform. The ``duty- to-the-
shareholders'' rule goes so far as to state that it's irresponsible to
do otherwise. As long as the monopoly holds, there is no incentive to
expend money and effort improving quality (and even the incentive of
attracting paid upgrades is fading because of recent subscription- based
approaches) and there is not much incentive to hold prices down. It doesn't
matter if millions or even billions of dollars are spent by other
businesses on Windows where new technologies might cut that overhead. It's
also much safer for Microsoft to quash new technologies if at all possible,
or at least remake them as Windows- centric, that risk giving up the
advantage of owning Windows. Microsoft's attempt to covertly make Sun's
platform-independent Java language Windows-specific, and then their
creation of the extremely similar C# language and .NET platform when
the previous approach failed for legal reasons, makes a good example. As
the court findings stated the clearly, new technologies (such as Netscape's
browser and Sun's Java) threatened change, which for Microsoft meant
reduced reliance on the Windows platform. It was Microsoft's job to snuff
them out. Similarly, when they cross the line it is the government's job to
enforce the law and punish those who break it, especially when just about
everyone else has been harmed.
Untold thousands of business decisions have been and will continue to be
made based on Microsoft's aura of invincibility and inevitability. My
instructor in a Microsoft Windows NT Server certification class started
things off by saying that the way he saw things, Microsoft's products were
going to be dominant over at least the next decade, whether any of us liked
it or not, so if we wanted to work on computers we would have to learn the
products. It would be a practical necessity. In corporations, IT directors
don't want to be responsible for choosing a product that is later
extinguished by Microsoft, even if it has some advantages over Microsoft's
offering. They want to bet on a winner. And the smarter software companies,
in their planning meetings, don't even try to make a product that Microsoft
could classify as a competitive threat. They saw what happened to earlier
competitors, and then they saw what happened to Netscape.
Many of these people don't believe that Microsoft makes the best products.
They think that Microsoft will do what it wants, legal or otherwise, and
don't think the government will stand up to Microsoft. And judging by
results, so far they'd be right. That's why the current perception of the
settlement as a Microsoft win so tragically undermines the legal victory.
But what about that unspoken assumption that punishing Microsoft would hurt
others too? If there were a harsher penalty and actual competition were
restored, Microsoft's ``ecosystem'' of resellers, trainers,
consultants, and other vendors would still survive- -they would use
whatever tools were available in the marketplace. And life would still go
on for the IT directors, the consumers, and the software vendors. Life
would go on, but might well be better, since they now had options that
weren't available to them before. Microsoft's best products have come as a
result of competition. When they were pushed to compete, as they were for a
time with Netscape, they produced a good browser. But take away the
competition, and the product stagnates. The court's findings detail the
extra steps Microsoft took to ensure Internet Explorer's dominance. I've
noticed the same cycle of rapid improvement, dealings to remove the
competitor, and sudden neglect with other products dating back into the
80s. (The history of Microsoft's Macintosh QuickBASIC is an example.) If
there is no one left to compete with Microsoft, where will Microsoft's
incentive be to improve at all? The future of computer technology in every
business and millions of people's lives may depend on whether that question
has an answer. That's why whatever
[[Page 27410]]
settlement is worked out with Microsoft must do more than the current
proposal.
Andrew Shearer
[email protected]
MTC-00023963
From: Christopher Robert Decoro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:24am
Subject: Please end the Microsoft case
To whom it may concern: After years of prosecuting Microsoft, no good has
come of it. There has never been any legitimate reason to attack Microsoft
for their success-- they have no monopoly, as there is no resource to
monopolize, and they cannot force anyone to use their product.
I am currently typing with a machine running Redhat Linux. The server on
which the mail client is actually running is an UltraSparc60 running Sun
Solaris. Microsoft has not forced me not to use these products, and has not
forced me to use their own. Sun Microsystems has done very well, despite
any tactics Microsoft has used in the past, and will continue to do well.
They are in no danger of being eliminated by Microsoft. As for Linux, it is
freely available, produced by volunteers like myself, and could never be
forced out of the market while people are still interested in working on
it. There will always be other options to Microsoft products. They do not
have a monopoly.
I do not use Microsoft operating systems, because as a Computer Science
researcher, they do not suit my needs. However, for many people, Microsoft
Windows is an easy to use, functional operating systems that does suit
their purposes. In the best interest of the consumer, you should allow
Microsoft to continue making products, and let the market and the
consumers, like myself, to vote with their wallets. Please end the
Microsoft case, and accept their settlement.
Thank you for your time.
Chris DeCoro
[email protected]
(714)776-4211
Researcher, UC-Irvine Computer Graphics Lab
MTC-00023964
From: tntvideo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:24am
Subject: Stop this NOW!
To whom this really concerns,
Our Nation, is up in arms because of the events of 9/11/01 as well as we
still worry about future events! We try to rise above all this by Uniting
as ONE!
More Lawsuits, NOW, of all the times again against a Company that has done
nothing really wrong! Except make the technology era of the world a lot of
money in the past!
Now when the stock market needs a lift and needs a company like Microsoft
to help lead the way again! There have been many people hurt deeply as they
were coming close to retirement age! They didn't want to worry about an SSI
check and living from month to month! All they did was try to do the best
they could for themselves and there families! Instead now there Mutual
Funds have all but dried up they have nothing left to there once well
balanced 401k and they don't have another 25 years to make there losses up!
Sounds a bit sad as well as familiar! AOL at this point has no good sense
but to add more pain to all Americans who have worked hard all there life!
This is a shame! And it shows in there stock price for which I am a
shareholder!
Let Microsoft's case be settled and STOP the MADNESS and let the one
company just go on to innovate and lead the way for other's to do the same!
AOL Time Warner is all sour grapes about that there fun in the sun was
coming to an end and now they don't want the party to stop! Now tell me
``Who is really a Monopoly at this time'' ?? It spells AOL that
is who!
Our nation, needs to recover more and more people have been losing there
jobs! Is this what AOL wants more of. Perhaps Mr. Greenspan didn't want the
middle class to get rich but at this point he's made it so the rich can't
get any richer as a matter of fact some of them are getting poorer! Where's
it going to end, If you have any say in this matter Please I beg you to do
the right thing and make it so Microsoft can settle their case and be left
alone until they really and truly were to do something criminal but until
then we as a nation are losing out on being able to help ourselves to keep
our own economy stable.
Thank You
Terrence Lipinski
MTC-00023965
From: A.Lizard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:25am
Subject: public comment
quote from an interview with Bork at: http://www.linuxplanet.com/
linuxplanet/opinions/4020/1/
Acceptance of the proposed settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft would clear the
road for the company to extend its monopoly to most if not all aspects of
computing, says Judge Robert H. Bork.
``I don't think it does anything to Microsoft,'' said Bork in an
interview with Linux Planet. ``I think it just lets them continue as
they were before.'' For the US government to roll over and play dead
in the context of the proposed settlement not only will mean that all the
millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent to clearly and convincingly
demonstrate that Microsoft used its monopoly power in violation of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act will have been wasted, but will put a damper on the
ability of the US computer industry to grow and innovate.
If the US DOJ and the courts *want* the future of computing in America to
become increasingly influenced by foriegn competition unfettered by a
Microsoft monopoly effectively given the force of law by an unjust and
unfair psuedo-penalty of the type proposed by DOJ, then the DOJ settlement
should be enacted exactly as proposed.
The alternative is to provide a *real* penalty to Microsoft. Forcing them
to reveal the proprietary information they have been using to make it
impossible for third-party developers to write products for the Windows
environment would be a good first step. Forcing them to stop using their
monopoly power to dominate new markets by building products to fit them
into their operating systems would be good. Fining them to remove the
profit from actions which have been found to be illegal would be good. If
antitrust legislation is to stand, it must be enforced no matter how large
the company or how large their political contributions are.
James R. Perry III
PO Box 931
Oakley, CA 94561
MTC-00023967
From: Lisa Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand this to be the public comment address for the Microsoft
Antitrust Settlement. Here is my comment:
I am a longtime Windows and C++ programmer. Microsoft has continually used
their Windows monopoly to kill any product line that competed with any of
their products--by giving away the product, by threatening computer
manufacturers and resellers, by revising Windows to break competing
software, by using hidden Windows APIs to give their applications a
performance edge that outside companies cannot match. The proposed
settlement will do nothing to prevent this. This case has gone so far, to
cave in now is shameful.
The arguments from Microsoft, especially that stupid integration argument,
are incorrect and manufactured. They deliberately chose to integrate IE
into system DLLs, made their system less stable and less secure by
``integrating'' the application into the system DLLs. All they
did was copy a few functions from the IE DLLs into the Windows
DLLs--this is both easily reversed by them, and a completely
manufactured integration. There was no good programming reason to do
this--in fact, it violates a large number of programming principles
(abstraction, object orientaion, extra dependencies, lack of encapsulation,
and poor security). A programmer who designed a system like that would be
considered incompetent.
Microsoft has shown for more than a decade that they have no respect for
the laws, and will do anything to increase sales and destroy the
competition. This will not stop with the current very weak
settlement--the settlement will encourage them to believe that they
can continue their current behavior, and continue to get settlements and
slap on the wrist treatment. The only solution is to hit them hard--to
require either a split of the company, or to require Windows to be open
source or something similar. I have been in this business for about 7
years, and the number of companies that have come up against Microsoft and
been destroyed by illegal and unethical methods is unbelievable. Lots of
active and innovative markets just vanished once Microsoft showed up and
began bundling, altering windows, or using internal APIs to gain an unfair
advantage, and killed the market. So long as they have the Windows monopoly
they will continue to abuse it, and the amount of choice the consumer has
will continue to decline; the cost of the products will continue to
increase.
[[Page 27411]]
The states have it right, this is not the time to give up. Withdraw the
settlement, and let's resolve once and for all Microsoft's usurping of the
software industry. I don't want or expect to see them destroyed, but they
will never stop abusing their monopoly until forced to do so, and the
settlement will not do it.
Lisa Henderson
San Diego, CA 92122
MTC-00023968
From: David Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my sincere dismay at the injustice of the proposed
settlement terms of DOJ vs. Microsoft. I have sat by and watched Microsoft
bully the entire software industry. The effects of which are so great, its
sad to imagine what could be today. Please help restore competition to the
industry I love. You must act now to make sure the Internet, and
communications standards remain open to everyone.
The following are critical to any agreement terms:
1. Any application or web service distributed by Microsoft which
communicates over a network must first have its protocol approved and
published by a fair committee. (The idea is not to hinder Microsoft's
ability to create their own protocols, only to insure that other
applications will compete on their relative merits.)
2. The committee will also provide a protocol compatibility suite (PCS) for
the protocol.
3. No Microsoft product, patch, or web service may be distributed without
first passing the protocol compatibility suite (PCS).
4. The latest Java Runtime Environment must be installed and configured on
all future Microsoft products for the next ten years--including Java
WebStart.
MTC-00023969
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I've said it for years, Microsofts strong arm tactics are what have made
computers a household appliance. DO NOT send us back to the days of non-
compatibility, 40 different operating systems, computer manafacturers
coming and going,leaving us with worthless $4000 paperwieghts. Microsoft
has given the people universal access to information. PLEASE DON'T LET ANY
REPUBLICANS SEE THAT STATEMENT !!!! An educated and informed public is the
bane of those who base thier platform on the catch phrases ``Cut
taxes, smaller government & shoot guns'', while bilking the
working class out of its hard earned dollars.
Microsoft allows others others to write programs for use on its operating
system, without charge, to use and modify microsofts property, without
charge, they even provide the tools to do so, without charge. You want to
go after a monopoly? Look at Apple.
Mike Hagen
Chico, CA. 95973
MTC-00023970
From: Tim Uckun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern.
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial.
Whatever punishment the court chooses must fully redress the actions
committed by Microsoft. Furthermore the court must make sure mechanisms are
in place so that Microsoft can never commit similar actions again. The
current settlement is inadequate in both respects.
Thank you.
Tim Uckun
Mobile Intelligence Unit.
``There are some who call me TIM?''
MTC-00023971
From: Brian J. Won
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
In short, the proposed Microsoft settlement is inadequate in more ways than
one.
Section III.B. is full of many possible legal workarounds for Microsoft. A
comprehensive set of rules, easily enforced, is required- not swiss cheese
for lawyers.
Section III.D. allows Microsoft considerable leeway in WHO the APIs are
released to; the language defining when and who the APIs are released to is
not strict enough.
Other areas are flawed, but that is what I have time to comment on. I
believe the proposed Microsoft Settlement would allow Microsoft to escape
with insufficient punishment and would be a major setback for consumers and
the US Government in failing to take appropriate punitive action.
Thankyou for your time.
Brian J. Won
MTC-00023973
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54am
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,
David Leng
19377 E. Pacific Oaks
Rowland Heights, CA 91748
MTC-00023974
From: Chris Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It certainly seems to me that Microsoft use very dodgy practices and that
the settlement seems wrong.
Cheers
Chris Bennett
Melbourne
Australia
[email protected]
MTC-00023975
From: Warren Kriedman, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:06am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
AS A CONCERNED UNITED STATES CITIZEN IT IS TIME THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SETTLED.
AOL RECENT SUIT IS A PLOY TO LITIGATE FURTHER A MATTER IS AN INTOLERABLE
ACT. WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN THE ECONOMY.
AOL IS A HUGE MONOPOLY... THEY SHOULDN'T THROW ROCKS WHEN THEY ARE STRONG
ARMING THE TELEVISION MEDIA, THE INTERNET, THE MOVIE INDUSTRY AND THE PRINT
MEDIA.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I AM A LARGE STOCKHOLDER OF AOL/TIME WARNER .
WARREN S. KRIEDMAN, MD
FLORHAM PARK, NJ
MTC-00023976
From: Jim Hoyt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
In my opinion the currently-proposed settlement with Microsoft is not a
good one.
Without considerably more than a slap on the wrist and long-term
restrictions/observation on its behavior Microsoft will behave just as
badly as previously. It's simply the nature of the beast.
Please add teeth to whatever penalty is imposed.
Thank you,
James G. Hoyt
Portland, Oregon
MTC-00023977
From: bernard j franklyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:21am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Ms.Renata,
I have been following the Microsoft case since it's inception. I am
familiar with the history of computers & the internet. I am very
familiar with the history of Microsoft.
If Microsoft's monopoly resulted in a better, bug free, cheaper product, I
probably wouldn't be as upset with them as I am. If Mr. Gates would stop
claiming that his products are the latest in software innovation, rather
than the subsuming of other peoples'' genius, I probably wouldn't
[[Page 27412]]
be as upset with them as I am. If Mr. Gates hadn't arrogantly terminated
support to Windows 95, I probably wouldn't be as upset with him as I am.
Finally, if Mr. Gates had allowed me to freely & easily choose which
browser to use rather than trying to force his own brand on me, I wouldn't
be nearly as upset with him as I am. The basis of our economy, our way of
life, is a free market economy. Mr. Gates is seeking to subvert that. What
he is doing is blatantly un-American! I was very disappointed when I
learned that DoJ was going to settle. I was very proud of my state
(California) & those other states who decided to continue the battle. I
find it ironic that a Democratic attorney general is so vigorously
defending the free market system while a ``compassionate
conservative'' seems willing to roll over & expose the nation's
belly to the beast.
I strongly urge you not to settle. Mr. Gates has shown a complete disregard
for any kind of good faith agreement. Even his so called good will gestures
are hollow as exemplified by his offer to provide his outmoded equipment
& software to the underprivileged. How cynical is that!!!
Microsoft is a bully. The only thing a bully understands is force &
dire consequences. It is time to impose these dire consequences. Without
the imposition of severe penalties, Mr. Gates will continue to strangle
commerce & innovation at a time when this country needs it most. I urge
you, your dept., & the judiciary, as advocates for the American people,
to impose penalties as severe as the law allows.
Thank you,
Bernard Franklyn
MTC-00023979
From: Faughn Justin Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement now arranged with Microsoft is not a good
idea, and would encourage the illegal business practices that Microsoft has
engaged in to continue.
Concerned citizen....
Justin Faughn
MTC-00023980
From: bnale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally think the settlement is crap. All it means is that Microsoft
can push $1 billion worth of ancient technology, crappy versions of windows
(come on, did you really think Windows 95 was really that spectacularly
stable?), and an attempt to gain new Microsoft recruits into public
schools, a place that Microsoft has never dominated.
If I were you, I would honestly punish Microsoft. At the least, I would
force them to donate $1 billion to help out the poorest, most dilapidated
schools. That would pay for far more than you could possibly imagine. I
would also force them at least to make the relevant portions of code for
windows available to all device manufacturers. This would eliminate so many
hardware problems.... IF you really were about punishing them, you'd do
more than simply open up a new market and a new recruiting drive for them.
GO AVALANCHE! WIN ONE FOR BORQUE!
-Brian Nale--A total puckhead.
MTC-00023981
From: Jean-Luc Boccon-Gibod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly oppose the proposal of MS to give hardware and software to
schools in need worth 1 billion US$ in order to avoid a fine of the same
amount. This would make a breach into a stronghold of Apple in the world of
education and would be a completely unfair commercial practice. I do hope
that the Department of Justice will not be abused by this impudent
proposal.
MTC-00023982
From: Renu Bora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello,
As per Dan Kegel's analysis of the Proposed Final Judgment in United States
v. Microsoft, (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), I believe that
the Proposed Final Judgment is inadequate. It fails to prevent Microsoft to
engage in anticompetitive practices. I believe it is not in the public
interest for the current Proposed Final Judgement to be signed.
Sincerely,
Renu Bora
CFO, Linux Public Broadcasting Network
Graduate Student, Duke University
MTC-00023983
From: Alain Bertrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just read the proposed settlement between Microsoft, and the DOJ (and
several states) and it seems that Microsoft is being given a government
sanctioned monopoly, instead of a punishment meant to keep it from
continuing to abuse it s monopoly. Microsoft is in a position now to take
over, and monopolize several other markets, if they are not stopped now.
The bigger we let the problem get, the harder it will be to fix later.
Microsoft has a long, clear history of abusing it s position as a monopoly,
and exploiting every possible loophole to continue doing so. Even a non
lawyer can see several loopholes in this agreement that would allow
Microsoft to continue with the business practices that started the whole
court battle. Unless something far stronger then this is done to keep
Microsoft in check they will continue to use their monopoly position in
Operating Systems to push other products into monopoly positions.
I firmly believe that the proposed final judgment will not even slow
Microsoft s expansion through illegal means. If this proposal is made the
final judgment we will have a much larger monopoly to try to deal with in a
few years. This agreement is a complete victory for Microsoft, at the
expense of the consumer.
One final thought, if Microsoft is allowed to get away with such blatant
violations of antitrust laws, how can we expect any other large, rich
corporation to take these laws seriously. It is not just Microsoft on trial
here, but now the antitrust laws themselves are threatened.
Thank you for your time,
Alain Bertrand
MTC-00023984
From: Sean Finney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom this may concern,
Hi. My name is Sean Finney. I am 20 years old and live in Stanwood, WA. I
will try to make this as short as possible. I've been building PCs since
the age of 13. I have always used Microsoft products and have been pleased
with the overall quality of them. The one thing I'd like to see is a
``bare bone'' version of their operating systems without add-ons
(internet explorer, outlook express, windows media player, and other
applications that a poised to compete in an open market with many others
that are not pre-installed with Microsoft operating systems). I also do not
know why their products cost so much, and why other software developers do
not have the same sort of ``source code'' access that internal
Microsoft programming departments behind the pre-installed applications
have. Since there are many other firms trying to gain access in the same
space as Microsoft they should have the same chances to succeed. At a very
BASIC level this is the same thing as equal rights! Remember that when
making the decision to either let Microsoft keep their edge on all the
competition or to level the playing field.
Thank you for your time,
Sean Finney ( [email protected] )
MTC-00023985
From: Josh Granek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Josh Granek
3160 Ellerslie Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21218
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to register my objection to the Final Judgement proposed to
settle the antitrust case against Microsoft. I am just an average citizen,
a graduate student who's opinion is influenced by extensive use of a
variety of different computers, operating systems, and software packages. I
agree with the findings of fact that microsoft has abused its overwhelming
monopoly position. I think that this abuse has led to software that is
worse than it would be in a truly competative market, and prices that are
higher than they would be in a truly competative market. Instead of showing
some respect for the government and citizens of this country, throughout
the trial, and even after being found guilty of anti-competative practices,
Microsoft has continued to be a bad corporate citizen. This was evidenced
to me most recently when I set up a new computer for my mother, it came
with Microsoft's latest
[[Page 27413]]
operating system, Windows XP. In the short period of time I used this
computer, it was obvious to me that Microsoft had put considerable effort
(effort which in my estimation, would have been better spent improving the
operating system itself) in incorporating new software in the operating
system that directly competes with software that is already freely
available, in an effort to extend its dominance of the software market. I
expect that Microsoft's monopoly position will result in the new software
incorporated in XP putting other often better software out of business.
Two examples of Microsoft's abuse are striking to me. First, having gained
dominance of the web browser market, Microsoft now plans to eliminate
support for plug-ins from future versions of Internet Explorer, the clear
intention here is to force users to use Microsoft versions of currently
available plug-ins (for example, eliminating use of the Real Network's Real
Audio Player, and replacing it with the Microsoft Media Player). While it
might seem acceptable to eliminate plug-ins when Microsoft provides
replacements, it truly becomes a problem in situations where there is no
reason to expect that Microsoft would make a replacement. For example, in
my field, many people use a browser plug-in called Chime to view the
structures of chemical compounds and biological molecules. This is a very
useful tool, but it has a limited audience, and Microsoft will never
produce a replacement. When future versions of Internet Explorer eliminate
support for plug-ins, we will no longer be able to view structures in
Internet Explorer. Plug-in support in web browsers furthered the
democratization of the World Wide Web, allowing third parties to produce
software that would interact with web browsers, now Microsoft plans to put
this to an end.
Microsoft's Office software is another example of the company's abuse.
Microsoft releases new versions of its office package every few years, and
most releases use file formats that are incompatible with other versions.
This practice forces businesses and individuals to buy each new version in
order to be able to exchange office documents with others. Additionally, in
contrast to many other software packages that use file formats which have
been published (Adobe is a particularly good example of this--file
formats used by their software, such as the Postscript, Portable Document
Format, and even the file format for Adobe's Illustrator software are
published), so other software can include filters that enable the files to
be read, Microsoft Office uses file formats that are proprietary, so other
software can't read these files, further cementing the monopoly.
Microsoft seems to believe that it is in every citizen's best interest (or
at least their investors') that they be allowed to do whatever they want,
but as George Will recently said, capitalism only succeeds when properly
regulated by the government. While I understand that Microsoft's job is to,
at all cost, maximize its profits for its investors, it is the government's
job to counter this tendency when it begins to hurt consumers and the
public in general. I think it is important that Microsoft be prevented from
continuing to abuse its domination of the computer software market, and as
a result, reducing the diversity in available software, and increasing the
price of software.
I am no expert in business or antitrust law, but I think that the proposed
settlement will do little to prevent Microsoft's continued abuse of its
monopoly. I am not in a position to propose a better settlement, and I
wouldn't presume to, many very good alternatives to the current proposal
have been made by those much more qualified than me to do so.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Josh Granek
MTC-00023986
From: tscott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
dont accept a compromise. microsoft will only do it again!
This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information
that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or
unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly
prohibited.
The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
policies of East Norfolk Sixth Form College, its employees or students.
MTC-00023987
From: Anonymous Person
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 5:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anonymous Person
111 N. Street
Anonymousville, CA 35976
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
I agree with everything pre-written below, but would like to add that the
only reason other co's and parties are suing MS is because they want more
profits from the market which MS ``owns'' a majority of.
Microsoft is playing by the rules of business. Concerning the action AOL is
taking agains MS now, saying MS is using illegal tactics by bundling IE
with Windows is absolutely foolish. One could say the same thing about AOL,
bundling Netscape browser and AOL Instant Messenger with their software.
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats
and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
MTC-00023989
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:13am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
After reading Dan Kegel's analysis of the proposed Microsoft Settlement
[http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html] I must concur. Not only
have they made a habit of misrepresenting their products to gain early
market share, it is reasonably well documented as Kegel mentions that:
``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 situation has not changed nor is likely to under the XP licensing
strategy (where users are forced to upgrade their software on Microsoft's
schedule and the program is made inaccessible until you do so and pay the
fees).
I feel that Microsoft will continue bullying the competition until someone
with some serious teeth puts them back in their place. In this country, the
DOJ is one of the few organizations that have the wherewithal to opening
back up the licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs, ISVs, etc. Please push
for an appropriate level of injunctions/sanction against Microsoft to force
them to stop doing ``business as usual''.
Sincerely,
John [email protected]]
MTC-00023990
From: Jim Changaris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I have read the stipulation and revised proposed judgment. I own 3600 share
of Sun Microsystems and 3600 shares of Microsoft and no shares in Oracle. I
believe that the Attorney General of California, the leader in the
objection to the settlement, is objecting it for his political enhancement
and should be ignored
[[Page 27414]]
MTC-00023991
From: ref
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settelemnt
AOL is out of line on this latest ploy to attack Microsoft Internet
Explorer.
I have tried AOL twice in the past, recently this past month, AOL is non
competitive and over-bearing.
I switched back to Internet Explorer because it offers a superior browser
without being intrusive. I had Netscape Navigator when I first got my
internet service 5 years ago. It was not up to standard and created
difficulty while browsing the Internet.
A friend told me about Internet Explorer so I tried it. I have been very
happy with this service. AOL should take note and provide people what they
want instead of cramming their idea of what we want down our throats.
This is suppose to be a country that allows people to make choices based on
their own needs and wants.
It is not right that anyone be taken to court for litigation just because
they offer a choice to the consumer.
If Aol/Netscape Navigator offered the best service they would not have to
bring suit in order to get the consumer to switch to their product. We
consumers are not stupid nor will we be intimidated or forced to except an
inferior service that is not our choice! It appears that AOL like the Dept.
of Justice is singling out Microsoft because it offers innovative ideas
that the consumer finds user friendly and therefore gravitates to the best
product on the market.
As I pointed out, I have tried both Netscape Navigator and AOL recently and
have switched back to what I believe is a better service.
Sincerely,
Edie L. Fisk
MTC-00023992
From: Malcolm Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:28am
Subject: Justice requires speed and severity.
Justice requires speed and severity. Anything less is giving Microsoft
permission to continue bending the software environment to its desire.
Great economic benefits will also result from a software market freed of
Microsoft's domination.
Malcolm Dean
Writer, Editor
1015 Gayley Av #1229, Los Angeles CA 90024-3424
[email protected]
213-401-2197 fax
Recent publications:
Contributing Editor, DesktopLinux.com
www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2152579590.html
www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT6783676122.html
The O'Reilly Network (www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/228);
CertMag; Certification Corner
Former News Editor, Maximum Linux, XML Journal
MTC-00023993
From: Dr David G.Lovering
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Crystal clear--Microsoft is GUILTY.
Why not take this opportunity of making an example of this arrogant
company. Strike a blow for the common man. Let the penalty fit the crime.
Bankrupt the operation and hand it over to the open source community. There
is absolutely no sympathy for Microsoft anywhere in the world. Daily, they
disgrace the great American people.
David G Lovering.
From: Dr David G. Lovering
The David Graham Consultancy in Science & Education
FARINGDON SN7 7EY UK
Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1367 241 750
base email: [email protected]
roving email: [email protected] (opened weekly)
http://www.geocities.com/dgrahaml
http://homepages.tesco.net/davidgl
MTC-00023994
From: Zolly (038) Kay Zemar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:40am
Subject: The ``American Dream''
To the Department of Justice
I do not understand all that is going on with Microsoft and Bill Gates. I
do know that Microsoft has been beneficial in the pioneer in the computer
industry, and has been responsible for making it possible for people like
me to enjoy a computer that an average person can understand and operate.
Bill Gates is a SELF MADE person. He is certainly a fine example of what a
person can achieve with determination and hard work. He created Microsoft
and with the help of his friends and employees made it a ``mega-
huge'' company. Now the Justice Department has decided he is too
big??? I guess the ``American Dream'' is only for people who
dream small.
You can only be what you want to be if you don't want to be too much
. . . is that it?? Bill Gates and Microsoft has done so
much to help so many people; yet he has been persecuted by the American
Justice Department. Isn't it about time you started concentrating on an
issue that matters . . . go after the ``bad
guys'' and leave the decent, dream achieving Americans do what their
hard work, genius ability, and tenacity allows them to do!! From a
disgruntled and disappointed American citizen . . .
Kathryn Zemar
MTC-00023995
From: N. Hagan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The latest round of litigation against Microsoft by AOL/Netscape is the
ultimate manipulation of our legal system. Netscape is a company that
apparently cannot or will not compete on its own merits and has now, once
again, turned to the court system to achieve what it cannot through the
free market and fair competition. Americans and shareholders are tired of
this abuse of our court system and the litigation process. It has to stop.
I don't expect sanctions against such harassing and frivolous lawsuit
although any responsible judge would throw this case out promptly for lack
of merit.
Whether Netscape's losses of market share is now purposeful (so that it can
avail itself of ``damages'' and more public relations) or simply
the result of incompetence, we cannot be sure. However, it is time that our
legal system and the taxpayers money stop being used by private industry to
harass and damage a company that has been wonderful for the consumer, it's
shareholders and our economy. It's tragic that AOL and Netscape cannot cut
it, but it is no longer the government's or Microsoft's problem. It's time
to cut these economic dead weights loose from our economic recovery.
MTC-00023996
From: S Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Punishing, Not Just Correcting Microsoft
Too often what I hear about the proposed action as a result of Microsoft
being found as having abused its copyright can be para-phrased as ``go
forth and sin no more''. The ways this message is delivered is very
different, of course, for each solution. Some favor the idea of an
overwatch commitee for a specified amount of time to prevent the abuse
happening again. Others proclaim restricitng Microsofts ability to flex
it's monopoly powers as the real answer. Sometimes they see doing this
through technical means such as opening up the APIs of the operating system
and associated works. Saying that surely pulling Microsofts favorite weapon
over fellow software developers out of it's arsenal would ensure
competition. Almost what all proposed remedies to the situation lack
however is punishment. Yes punishment for it's crimes seems mysteriously
absent from all of the popular remedies that are bandied about. If a child
steals a choclate does a parent take away the chocolate and think that is
enough. That not having the chocolate is punishment enough for having
stolen it. If a youth vandalizes the side of a building by spray painting
pictures or words, is the proper course of action taking away the cans of
spray paint? Of course not. Adults that murder (taking this line of
reasoning to its ridiculous end) are not seen as punished if all that is
done is taking away their gun. A crime has been comitted. While ensuring
that the criminal does not lash out again is very important, almost more so
is what penalty is too be associated with exploiting a monopoly to crush
one's competition. It is easy to miss this important part as commonly the
solution does both. Going to jail takes an individual out of society and
puts him in a very undesirable environment (punishment), and at the same
time jail is seen as a correctional facility (preventing the action from
recurring). How effective it is to make someone more fit for common society
by putting them in the position of having to be as or more dangerous than
the worst of society is a whole other arguement. However the point remains
that any proposed remedy should do both.
I propose that the punishment and the corrective action should be easly
seen as
[[Page 27415]]
separate parts. Just as a parent explaining how wrong it is to steal the
chocolate and then spanking or grounding seeks to correct future theivery.
The punishment is also the easist to deliver. Referring again to the case
of the chocolate loving child. It is comparativly much easier to spank or
ground a child (even though they are loved) than explaining to them in ways
that their impressionable young minds will understand why you have to spank
or ground them and how bad them taking a chocolate from a store, that seems
to have an abundance enough not to notice one missing, is. A fine of some
amount noticeable to the deep coffers of Microsoft could serve as such a
punishment. However in my perception of the finances of Microsoft a fine of
an any amount might be disliked but easily forgotten with their influx of
money. For while it might take great resources to produce their product the
resulting physical manufacturing of their work is virtually nil compared to
what it is sold for. This is why any hole could be quickly filled and any
loss of quality could be palmed off on the fine. This is why they should be
forced to pay a fine to the Free Software Foundation, an orginization that
seeks to enrich humanity through quality free software. Quite apart from
how morally right they might be a large amount of money to the Free
Software Foundation, arguably Microsofts biggest competitor, would be a
punch directly in the solar plexus of the unrepentant software giant. This
would be a remedy that could not so easily be shrugged off. A fine to any
orginization that directly and competitively opposes Microsoft would do the
job just as well. A strong oversight body that had the ability to direct
fines so at continued uncorrected behavior would have very sharp teeth.
Even without directly helping Microsofts competitors, a fine would be a
clear example that the final verdict was not just another ``go forth
and sin no more'' proclomation to Microsoft.
Samuel O Johnson
MTC-00023997
From: Jim Changaris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:44am
Subject: microsof settlement
Sunflower
I own 3600 shares of Sun Microsystems common stock and an equal number of
shares of Microsoft common stock. I have an interest in seeing the
Microsoft litigation ended. Continuing that litigation is not good for the
economy. Microsoft the leader in technology innovations along with many
other technology companies have been largely responsible for the economic
growth of the 90s. The attorney general of California in needlessly
opposing the settlement to satisfy his personal political interests.
There is no question but that he will be candidate for governor within the
next four years. He is pandering to the money in silicon valley for
campaign contributions from Sun Microsystems and others in California's
Silicon Valley and pursuing the needless litigation at the huge expense of
the California taxpayers, including me. Continuing the litigation is not in
the best interests of the nation. Continuing road blocks to the innovation
of technology will do damage to our economy. I have read the stipulation
and the proposed judge and believe it is more than fair to the Microsoft
competitors who obviously want Microsoft destroyed. I urge the approval of
the settlement.
MTC-00023998
From: Zak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:44am
Subject: It seems clear that Microsoft has avoided any serious
It seems clear that Microsoft has avoided any serious penalty that would
curb its anti-competative behaviour.
The nature of business leads to companies using whatever means necessesary
to tip the scales in their favour; legal or illegal. Microsoft has immense
power with no real incentive to use it in a benign way.
My favoured result would have been to see the company split into around 20
different businesses, based on product lines; which I believe would have
led to greater innovation and competition; although it would probably
impact the ``integrated'' nature of Microsoft software in the
short term.
MTC-00023999
From: Goksin Bakir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:45am
Subject: MS Settlement, Settle At Once
In the last 20 years there has been a giant thrust in the software
industry. The number of software developers have increased with computers
becoming available to everybody. Microsoft has a big role in realizing this
dream.
Not only in the US, but all around the world software industry made job
opportunities avaliable to millions of people. A big number of small
Businesses exploited computing machines more and more every day. Microsoft
has a big part in this becoming true as well.
Now there is a case against Microsoft for being dominant in the market. If
Microsoft had not lowered prices and increased availability of software
(along with its partners) the above points would not be true. So, Our
Belief is that Microsoft is not only a benefit for American people and
Industry but to the other parts of the world as well. Please Support the
settlement on the Microsoft case.
We appreciate your efforts in th?is matter.
Goksin Baky'r.
Yage LTD
Istanbul, Turkey
MTC-00024000
From: Mark Rushing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
We feel it is IMPERATIVE that the DOJ, if reaching a settlement with
Microsoft, be very exacting in its definitions regarding the scope of
restrictions and requirements regarding Microsoft API's, proprietary
technologies and business practices.
The development of technologies will be severely hindered by continued
predatory repression of diverse advancements in the Information
Technologies arena.
Microsoft must be required to acknowledge their ubiquitous position and act
accordingly, with little room for legal machinations that further narrows
and hinders creativity and freedom.
Allowing one company to control the methods of access and of processing of
information is certainly unwise.
We encourage the DOJ to act definitively and thoroughly in this case and/or
settlement.
Thank you,
Mark Rushing
IT Analyst
Orbis Lumen
Seattle, WA
MTC-00024001
From: Bissell, Tim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not a US citizen, but I thought I would write anyway to express a
strong belief held by me and many of my colleagues that the proposed
Microsoft settlement should be rejected. I think my comments are valid,
even if written in English rather than US English!
It appears to me that rather than punishing Microsoft for its past, illegal
behaviour, or providing for effective control of its future behaviour, it
simply enshrines the current status quo in law, namely that Microsoft has
obtained and maintained a monopoly in the operating system market, by
illegal means (not allowing vendors to sell machines which can boot into
more than one operating system) and has used that monopoly position to
obtain monopolies in other markets (``Office'' productivity
suites and Web browsers to name two) to the detriment of consumers.
One example of where the proposed settlement is weak is that it takes no
account of Open Source products. Samba is an open source system which
allows Unix or Linux servers to provide networked disk for Windows client
machines, and requires access to Microsoft APIs. THis knowledge is encoded
in programs which are freely available. If Microsoft is allowed to license
this information, as proposed in the settlement, it can (and will, based on
past behaviour) demand that the information be treated as a trade secret,
and thus exclude all Open Source systems from the information. This would
enable Microsoft to ``legally'' kill off Samba, and thus enable
them to spread their operating system monopoly still further, by requiring
that Networked disks for Windows clients can only be provided by Windows
servers. This is only one example of the many deficiencies in the proposed
settlement; I could have picked many more. Please reject the proposed
settlement and start again.
On behalf of myself, and not my employer
Regards,
Tim
Work:[email protected]+44 (0)171 4758789
Home:[email protected]+44 (0)1480 451022
[[Page 27416]]
MTC-00024002
From: King Monty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:52am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Trial
Hi
I live in Cape Town, South Africa and am a strong supporter of the
information era. I have the following comments regarding the Microsoft
Anti-Trust trial.
Firstly, due to my location, I may not have been entirely able to follow
every detail of the case. To be fair,
I believe that due to the complexity of the trial and indeed the entire
case, there are ery few people who probably were able to follow the case in
its entirety. My background is for the most part development in the
information technology sector. I'm also deeply involved in the
entertainment and new media industry.
I am effectively forced--like so many others--to use Microsoft
products. Not because it's a standard Operating System with most companies
in South Africa, but because it's a monopoly. Due to economic systems where
our exchange rate from our currency to US dollars and the fact that
Microsoft is effectively an American company means that the cost alone for
microsoft products are extremely exaggerated. This cost is reduced to zero
when using something like linux. When I first got involved in the
information technology sector, the majority of South Africans used the
Netscape Navigator internet browser. Today, thanks to the bundling system,
the figures for use of Microsoft Internet explorer as an internet browser
is more than 80% of the internet active population of South Africa (these
are substantiated facts). Microsoft have affected South African businesses
in severe ways, targeting them with huge marketing campaigns, forcefully
trying to make them believe that there is no other operating system
available. With the advent of a massive internet boom in South Africa,
large ISP's extend Microsoft's monopoly further by forcing home users to
use software that only works on Microsoft Windows. New PC buyers in South
Africa cannot purchase a new computer without having Microsoft Windows XP
installed.
There is no choice where you are not given one.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]&
commat;inetg...
MTC-00024003
From: Harve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47am
Subject: microsoft-usdoj settlement is a bad idea anfd a real shame
I would like you to know that I and a lot of people like myself do not
appreciate the lack of representation our government is giving us in the
fight to control outright monopoly. Microsoft not only makes it hard for
small companies to innovate in the personal computer arena, but it also
provides an inferior product, without the cleansing effect of competition
to enforce improvement. I waste perhaps 30 minutes a day because I am
forced to use inferior Microsoft products due to this monopoly.
Stop giant companies now and give the opportunity back to small business
(and by that I mean companies of 1-50 employees, not companies of
1000.
There is no Republican/big business mandate in this country, as much as it
may appear to be so.
Harvie H. Branscomb
Carbondale CO 81623
Owner, Charybdis (a small computer software company trying to survive)
MTC-00024004
From: Matt Bardeen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:08am
Subject: Concerned Citizen
As a citizen of the United States of America, I'm concerned. As a computer
user, I'm concerned. As a network administrator, I'm concerned.
First, a little background. I am in no means your average computer user. I
started programming when I was 11 years old. That was 17 years ago. My
first real computer came with a copy of Microsoft DOS (Disk operating
system). I have been using Microsoft products in some form or another for
all of the past 17 years. I have watched Microsoft grow from a small
computer software manufacturer to one of the largest (and most profitable)
in the world.
In that time I watched many competing products and companies, most of them
truly innovative, fall before Microsoft's marketing and business
strategies. There were products such as the GEM windowing desktop, Desqview
DOS, and IBM OS/2, and companies such as Netware, Lotus, and Netscape.
I used Microsoft products and I didn't think anything of it. I put up with
the instabilities, the fact that they only really worked well with other
Microsoft products.
Then in 1995, I started working in a billion dollar company, supporting
their worker's computer and administering part of their network. This
company went from using a mixture of Microsoft and other products to using
Microsoft products exclusively. During the 5 years I worked there, I saw
Microsoft become more aggressive and more dangerous in the marketplace. I
finally quit that company because I was fed up with telling the people I
worked with ``There's nothing I can do, it's a Microsoft
problem.''
The Internet is becoming increasingly Microsoft centric. There are sites
that I used to use, but cannot anymore because they don't support my
browser. Recently there has been a push by Microsoft to get record
companies to use their Windows only media format for all new music
releases. Microsoft's selling point on this is the inclusion of Windows
Media Player in all the operating systems they sell. This is not benficial
to competition and will only serve to raise the barrier to entry into the
operating system market. Recently, Microsoft has been pushing a system of
software ``rental'', where you have to pay for your operating
system every year, whether you require it or not. Given their monopoly
power, they stand a good chance of implementing such a scheme. Once again,
a Microsoft ``innovation'' that is of dubious gain to consumers.
The latest Microsoft marketing scheme is .NET and Passport, where they hope
to implement (and corner) the market on micropayments on the net. Many
analysts have pointed out that the key to .NET's success is the success of
Microsoft's latest operating system, Windows XP, because it has the
essential grouding for .NET built in to it.
All of these ``innovations'' are examples of Microsoft's current
attempts to use their monopoly power to invade other markets. I feel that
these attempts will be left untouched by the current remedies proposed by
the Justice Department in the settlement of this case. This seems absurd to
me because it is practices such as these that are specifically declared
illegal under antitrust law, and indeed the same practices that the court
has already found Microsoft guilty of using.
So, as a consumer, a network administrator, and a citizen, I can only
demand that the settlement as proposed be scuttled and a more appropriate
remedy be found which prevents Microsoft from further breaking the law.
MTC-00024005
From: James J. Decoulos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00024005 0001
file:///C/win/temp/tmp.
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I hereby submit my comments on the proposed
settlement of United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232.
In order to provide an effective remedy to the Court of Appeals decision,
Microsoft should be required, inter alia:
(1) to make the most current version of Windows available on an open source
basis, compensating Microsoft for the fair market value of the intellectual
property;
(2) to make the most current version of Internet Explorer available on an
open source basis, compensating Microsoft for the fair market value of the
intellectual property;
(3) to port the latest version of the application Microsoft Office to work
on the Linux operating system.
Thank you.
James J. Decoulos, PE, LSP Decoulos & Company 248 Andover Street
Peabody, MA 01960, tel: 978-532-8154, fax:
978-359-6034 web: www.decoulos.com
MTC-00024006
From: Marcus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Aloha,
I, Marcus Marchesseault, a natural-born citizen of the United States of
America and a resident in the State of Hawaii would like to voice my
opinion in the important matter of the anti-trust suit againts Microsoft. I
believe that the monopoly has gone on far too long and great damage has
been done to our economy. The stranglehold that Microsoft has on the market
inhibits the ability of competitors to create new and innovative products.
Microsoft's blatant violation of
[[Page 27417]]
anti-trust law by restricting the ability of competing software companies
to effectively use it's operating system are numerous and I am dismayed why
nothing has been done to stop them.
With help from IBM, Microsoft gained a dominance in the market with their
operating system even though there were several better systems available.
Most of the competitors are now gone (Atari, Commodore, and Apple) and
there is no way for anybody to break into the market unless Microsoft gives
them permission to use their operating system. There is no company that has
the financial resources and market position to compete against Microsoft
and this situation should have been prevented. The company should have been
separated into Operating Systems and Applications divisions several years
ago. The fact that the world has settled upon one operating system for all
it's needs arose from an early benefit of standardization in programming.
Now, Microsoft uses that monopoly to give it's own applications dominance
over any other company. If this situation is allowed to persist, there will
soon be only one software company in operation and all of the operation of
U.S. corporations will depend on the whims of Microsoft. Microsoft has
gradually taken over all of the significant applications markets and it is
only a matter of time before they are able to disallow other companies from
creating any new products for Windows operating platforms.
I thought that I should explain why I say that Apple corporation is no
longer a Microsoft competitor.
Microsoft bailed out Apple in an attempt to keep them alive long enough for
the Justice Department to think that there is some sort of competition in
the market. This simply is not true. There is only ONE player in the
personal computer applications market and that is Microsoft. Apple is
simply a puppet that is allowed to exist long enough for Microsoft to get
out of trouble. Now that they are not going to be significantly punished,
all remaining competitors will be flushed from the market.
I hope that a serious resolution can be implemented.
Mahalo,
Marcus Marchesseault
[email protected]
Honolulu, HI 96821
MTC-00024007
From: Rich B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft should be held accountable
for its'' illegal actions.
--Rich Brennan
[email protected]
MTC-00024008
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:30am
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 againstMicrosoft.
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,
David Nunn
6738 E 10th St
Tulsa, OK 74112-4612
MTC-00024009
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As consumer who has basically been forced fed shoddy, virus propagating
microsoft products, as I watched all alternative options for an operating
system disappear. Let's not forget, that I HAVE TO PAY for the software
that continually needs to be updated (at a price) and takes more and more
control away from ME, the person who paid for it. I have been playing
around with IBM pc's for about 15 years, I know how it works and the
programs that SHOULD run on it. I don't need or want MS telling me what I
can and can't do with MY computer. I don't need Internet Explorer shoved
down my throat.
I am absolutely outraged that MS for the umpteenth is allowed to continue
to do business as usual after being found guilty of something. A perfect
example is, the only DSL service in my area is MSN, fair enough, I use it.
The problem is, I HAVE to use MS products to send and receive email through
the MSN domain, no other email programs are allowed to access their mail
servers. Hmmm, any other ISP will let you use whatever you'd like. Couple
this with I have been WAITING 2 WEEKS for them to delete an email
containing a file THEIR product can't download and is clogging my mail box.
This is a prime example of unfairly removing any competition, forcing their
own products and then ignoring me, THE PAYING CUSTOMER when it doesn't work
as advertised.
This huge gift and free ride of a ``settlement'' isn't going to
cut it. If MS isn't punished appropriately to the vast crimes they have
committed (and found guilty of) and will continue commit, I shall be
voicing my opinion at the voting booth.
A forced and resentful MS consumer,
Mark Orr
MTC-00024010
From: John Eriksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Divide up microsoft . . .
We all know why . . .
Fining them a billion or two. . . p l e a s e. . .
Mr Gates could write you a check tomorrow. . .
personally. . . for 70 times that amount. . .
A Fine does not address the problem. . . Microsoft rakes in money
almost as fast as the federal Govt. . .
Divide up microsoft. . . you did it to standard Oil
You did it to At&T
Its time you did it again.
MTC-00024011
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:34am
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,
Eileen Novosel
1703 Lansdale Avenue
Bethlehem, PA 18017
MTC-00024012
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48am
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.
[[Page 27418]]
Sincerely,
Terry Frady
5 Palmira Ct.
Brownsville, TX 78526-1952
MTC-00024013
From: vin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Ruling
Please take stringent action against Microsoft's Monopoly. In today's
current software marketplace Microsoft has a strangle hold not just on the
Browser, but on the whole operating system. To make matters worse they are
also the de-facto standard in business productivity applications with the
.doc file. The have grown way to powerful and pervasive. What worries me as
a citizen is the world wide reliance on a single computer platform. What is
going to happen when a hacker writes a virus that is truly destructive and
wipes out 95% of the worlds data. Microsoft has shoe-horned us into a
dangerously exposed technology position.
Sincerely
Vin Capone
MTC-00024014
From: Peter Kirch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find the proposed Microsoft settlement to be a scam..
I have been a consultant in IT since 1984. I have been involved with IT
projects since 1978. I have worked with apple II, IBM mainframes, and DEC
VAXes. I have watched Microsoft attack and destroy company after company
using their position and wealth. Microsoft only ``innovates''
when they are attaching competition. When the competition is gone they sit
on their laurels.. I watched the original trial (1995) and thought the
outcome was a scam.. This proposal is for this trial (2000) is also a scam.
Microsoft has silenced companies by ``investing'' in them or by
threatening them.
Please open the playing field back up. Do not slap them on the wrist.
The present proposal is nothing more than a WASTE OF MY MONEY.. PLEASE USE
MY MONEY WISELY.
As a taxpayer I insist on a better proposal.. this one stinks of politics..
Peter Kirch
MTC-00024015
From: Wendy Krieger
To; Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been
converted to attachment.]
MTC-00024015--0001
Dear Sir or Madam
I have read the Microsoft Judgment, and found it excludes areas where
Microsoft has been anti-competitive, but the matters not brought to trial
on this. I therefore offer my comments on this matter.
Wendy Krieger
Comment on the Revised Final Judgments.
I read the final judgment, and I see a series of loopholes. The
restrictions apply mainly to OEM distributions, and not retail versions.
This allows Microsoft scope to engage in anti-competitive behavior in the
upgrade market and server side.
Microsoft should be compelled to undo the damage done to competition. What
is offered here is additional items designed to have Microsoft fix up the
disadvantage of its acts, in much the same way that AT&T had to replace
the telephone fittings to a more open standard.
I Undoing the Damage to Clients.
The conditions affect only copies distributed by way of OEM sales to the
largest vendors. It does not prevent the same sort of behavior against
upgrade copies.
For example, Windows 2000 upgrade prevents the dual booting of it and any
non-Microsoft operating system. In order to overcome this, one must apply a
100 MB service pack 2, and take into effect all of the other
``features'' that comes with it.
Microsoft should be compelled to manufacture, and distribute at nominal
costs, a fix for every affected operating system (ie Windows 95 OS/R2.x,
98, 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP), a patch that undoes the following anti-
competitive elements:
a: Any commingled browser, or other Microsoft Middleware.
b: Any code that prevents or damages on each boot, any non-Microsoft boot-
loader
c: Any code or instructions that detect non-Microsoft drivers from loading.
MTC-00024015_0002
The computer shall be able to boot and function in such capability. [This
gets around the functionality of removing core code that is required to
function with both the browser and the operating system.]
It shall also distribute, on the same media, installable versions of its
own middleware, and installable versions of competing middleware, as
provided by the manufactures.
a: Alternate versions are to be provided to facilitate the capabilities of
different machines.
This prevents a version of IE being distributed that requires a certain
version of Windows to be installed.
Microsoft shall, in its browsers, reinstate and facilitate, any interface
and streaming to non-Microsoft clients, such as:
a: The Netscape plug-in interface, introduced in IE 3, and later withdrawn:
See the Apple deposition in the Antitrust trial.
b: Streaming of data to non-Microsoft middleware. This allows a partially
down-loaded file to be displayed in the client window. If the file is not
streamed, the complete file must be downloaded before it is passed to the
middleware to display.
The cost of distributing this media shall be borne by Microsoft, and shall
be made freely available at any outlet that sells or distributes any
Microsoft software.
Where Microsoft's actions are set to harm or provide confusion, then
Microsoft's shall act to undo the damage of its invasion. For example,
partitions formatted as HPFS or NTFS present themselves to any utility as
being the same type. Software that scans hardware looking for errors will
present the HPFS partition as being corrupt, and offer to
``correct'' it.
This will damage the data in the partition. Microsoft was aware of this,
since Windows NT 3 and Windows NT 4 support the partition. The NTFS is
therefore ``intrusive'' onto ground already established as
identifying as a HPFS partition. Since HPFS has a pre-existing claim, it is
Microsoft's fault for intruding onto its space, and Microsoft's costs to
repair it. Microsoft shall continue to offer for sale, at a discount rate,
older versions of its operating systems. This prevents it forcing changes
on the market-place. All versions of operating systems offered shall
contain the patch cdrom as described above.
MTC-00024015_0003
Microsoft shall make available, at nominal costs at retail outlets, compact
disks that contain patches for its various operating systems. This saves
people having to download 100MB files over faulty connections at great
expense. [Windows 2000 SP 2 is not available except by download. At 100MB,
this takes a very long time to download. There is no reason why a OS patch
disk should not be available where the operating systems are sold.]
II. Undoing the damage on the server side.
This is aimed at removing restrictions to the use of non-Microsoft browsers
on the web, and aimed at making the internet accessible to alternate
browsers and other middleware.
For the purpose of this section, ``non-Microsoft middleware''
carries the connotation that it must be technically able to do the task. It
also includes older versions of Microsoft middleware, that do not have the
latest code that provides artificial restrictions.
The access to the services for a user to administer his or her account
shall not be restricted to one operating system or browser. Ideally, this
should be accomplished through actions on the server side. Much other
electric commerce is independent of this restriction. At the minimum, the
ISV should be able to redistribute a html document that contains links to
essential services, that it may be accessed through any browser off any
operating system.
Microsoft shall not restrict access to any of its internet networks or
services to technically capable non-Microsoft clients. One should be able
to enter a chat room from a non-Microsoft chat client, have mail from one's
Hotmail account forwarded to a capable non-Microsoft client. [You can do
this to Outlook and Outlook Express, but not with the rivals like Endora].
Where Microsoft provides an enhancement or change to its service, it shall
continue to provide access to the services using the standard interfaces.
Microsoft shall assist, at its expense, alterations to be made to sites
that prevent access by non-Microsoft browsers and middleware.
For the purpose of law, any site that is not accessible with non-Microsoft
middleware and browsers, on a non-Microsoft operating system, is deemed to
be ``unaccessable'', and therefore not in compliance with any
stated requirement to be ``accessible from the internet''. This
will encourage other parties to dismantle their ``Microsoft
Only'' networks.
MTC-00024015_0004
[[Page 27419]]
III. Network Communications and Clients.
Microsoft shall not interfere with, and provide support for, standard
network protocols, to the extent that any version of Windows may interact
with a machine loaded with a different operating system, whether Microsoft
or not. This is aimed at the embrace and extinguish practices of Microsoft.
This condition is not intended to interfere with the development of
specialist network interfaces, it is more intended to allow any operating
system, out of the box, to participate in a network using standard
protocols. For example, video adapters, in addition to the manufacturer's
specialist interfaces, can operate in VGA mode.
IV. Altered Standards and confusing names
Microsoft shall recognize and respect pre-existing standards. Where it
modifies a standard, or implements it in a way that will cause confusion
and incompatibilities with the pre-existing standard, then Microsoft shall
use a different identifier and name (while acknowledging the Intellectual
property of the base remains with its original owners).
This is intended to overcome the use of names that are likely to confuse:
OS/R2 [Curiously, Only Windows 95 was described in this manner: OS/2 was a
serious competitor. Windows 98 and later was not described like this.], J++
and MS Java (the differences between this and Sun's version has been tested
in court), NTFS and HPFS (Microsoft modified HPFS to such an extent that
the NTFS driver can not read HPFS and HPFS can not read NTFS: but they are
identified as the same partition type, correspondingly, each think the
other is corrupt.]
V. Microsoft Hardware.
Microsoft shall provide with its hardware, drivers and software to allow
the use of its hardware under a non-Microsoft operating system. Such
software shall not be any more intrusive or interfering than any other
compatible non-Microsoft driver, or the Microsoft driver on a Microsoft
software.
[This condition prevents Microsoft Mouse for OS/2 advertising Windows, or
displaying a splash screen with a five second delay]. VI. Compliance
MTC-00024015_0005
Microsoft will be required to comply with these terms, under the same
management as the judgment already entered.
Wendy Krieger
27 Coverdale Street
Indooroopilly, Q 4068
AUSTRALIA
MTC-00024015_0006
MTC-00024016
From: Hooky Sun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:59am
As someone familiar with computing and the computer industry, and the
adverse effects of Microsoft's monopolies in these areas, I do not see how
the settlement that is put forth even pretends to remedy the antitrust
crimes of which Microsoft has been found guilty. The company has already
been found in violation, (this is the penalty phase of the case) but the
settlement contains no penalties and even increases Microsoft's monopoly. A
just penalty, I continue, would at least carry three additional features:
(1) Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's monopoly must
place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the purchase of new
computers, so that the person 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 computer without the software (which would prevent computer
makers from saying that the difference in price is only a few dollars).
Only then could competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
(2) The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document file
formats must be made public, so that documents created in Microsoft
applications may be read by programs from other makers, on Microsoft's or
other operating systems. This is in addition to opening the Windows
application program interface, which is already part of the proposed
settlement.
(3) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would keep Microsoft
from seizing de facto control of the Web or, yes, the Internet. If the
National Interest is at stake then surely to further the monopoly does not
serve it for how many times has a weakness been found and exploited for
harm within the black boxes sold by Microsoft? Do we wish to increase such
occurrences?
MTC-00024017
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00am
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,
Evan Goltl
124 e. mulberry st.
Hill City, KS 67642
MTC-00024018
From: Maloney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone, they're doing a GREAT job! They've created a world-
wide computing standard that is GOOD for me and my family, as well as
everyone else in the great US of A!!!!
Jeff Maloney
MTC-00024019
From: Jim Connery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I consider this settlement to be a bad idea, the proposed settlement does a
very poor job for everyone BUT Microsoft.
James E. Connery [email protected]
13314 Granada
Houston Tx. 77015
MTC-00024020
From: Jamie Dow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my displeasure with the state of the Microsoft
Settlement. I believe that Microsoft has gone too long without punishment
for what has been found to be a number of illegal acts violating American
antitrust laws. I also believe that the current settlement does not do
nearly enough to remedy this situation, and that Microsoft will be getting
off with just another ``slap on the wrist'' as has happened so
many times before. Although Microsoft would like us to believe that it
innovates, it only serves to stifle innovation through the use of it's
considerable muscle as a monopoly (or at the very least, near-monopoly). It
has repeatedly used illegal practices to push its competition out of the
marketplace.
This is a very ``Un-American'' thing to do. We are a country that
prides itself on capitalism and free trade, and the keystone of capitalism
is that there must be competition for the system to work. By allowing
Microsoft to continue with it's anticompetitive activities, we destroy the
very foundation of the American economy.
I urge you to reconsider your settlement, and not to let Microsoft get off
too easily once again.
--Jamie Dow (Newport Beach, CA. Student--University of
California, Irvine)
MTC-00024021
From: Lambrecht, Joris
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hope the court takes into account the numerous ``tactical''
bugs which are actually a way of orchestrating the market. Also, the extent
of the way ``exploits'' appeared in Microsoft products combined
with the NSA-key controversy is quite disturbing to all who care about
privacy. Microsoft only recently turned focus to security thus actually
confessing to NOT have cared in the past while company's and people surely
were made to believe so. These previous topics have been a way which
seriously misled a lot of people into believing a Microsoft product is what
it claims to be. In fact, Microsoft should be paying people to install one
of their security-fixes. Looking at the revenue and profits Microsoft has
at it's disposal it's quite frustrating to realize they've never cared for
delivering a better, less bug ridden, product in the first place thus
actually stealing money from trusting citizens.
[[Page 27420]]
Finally, Microsoft products should be banned as a defacto standard for the
educational system as they've managed to accomplish all over the world.
Mostly by out-buying their competitors or by launching a F.U.D.-campaign
against perfectly viable alternatives as there is Open Source Software.
Moreover, right now they are raising the prices of educational licensing by
as much as 40%. Good grief. This is a strangling policy typical for the
disregard in which Microsoft interacts with the market and the public.
Tax-payers, like me, worry more and more about company's like Microsoft who
lay claim to solutions instead of providing one.
Kind Regards,
Joris Lambrecht
Ebone NOC IP Operations
[ Phone ] +32 2 658 52 52 [ Fax ] +32 2 658 51 06
Operations : http://www.ebone.com/ebone.nsf/goto/6030
MTC-00024022
From: E. Jane Wineteer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Cases
I am totally sick of the government interfering in the legitimate success
of American business. Either Americans can handle competition (and benefit
from it) or they can?t; the market should decide, not the courts.
It appears to me that detractors are simply trying to make money by suing
Microsoft rather than turning their efforts to making better products and
thus succeeding in the marketplace rather than the courts. I do not think
the Justice Department should be a willing party to this activity.
E. Jane Wineteer
[email protected]
MTC-00024023
From: C. Faye Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE END THIS NIGHTMARE! The AOL vs Microsoft wrangling is not consumer
friendly.
We users and surfers have suffered during these legal proceedings. AOL's
goal appears to be to drive Microsoft out of business. Should this succeed
the losses of jobs and stock earnings will make the Enron bankruptcy look
like peanuts. The Recession began with the political and ignorant Penfield
decision.
The Depression will begin if the Bush DOJ does not stop this snowball bound
for Hell.
The DOJ and States'' AGs, AOL conglomerate and Class Action lawyers
are the only winners. Consumers are already paying increased prices for:
internet access (up 18% including AOL), operating systems and programs (up
15%). The cost to stockholders is already a negative 20% to 50%.
AOL has instituted another frivolous lawsuit. Please stop AOL's goal of
driving Microsof into bankruptcy and our country into Depression.
Christine F. Keller
9181 Market Ave.
Hartville, OH 44632-8715
MTC-00024024
From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever it concerns:
I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a joke. The were proven
guilty and they only given a slap on a wrist. Microsoft needs to unbundle
all non OS related programs from its operating systems.
They only bundle software in order to take over the market share and make
their monopoly stronger. If they truly cared about the customer they would
bundle Office into the operating system but that would affect their revenue
on a product that they have already a monopoly in. I believe the penalties
for Microsoft should be much stiffer.
Thanks for listening
Jason Klemesrud
MTC-00024025
From: Tim (038) Wendy McGill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23am
Subject: Please drop your current suit against Microsoft. The reason for
their market share is simply that t
Please drop your current suit against Microsoft. The reason for their
market share is simply that they have provided the consumer a superior
product at a reasonable price. I have tried Netscape and it is garbage.
That is the reason they can't compete.
Tim McGill
Kingsland, Ga.
MTC-00024026
From: Creighton Kirkendall
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 7:22am
Subject: Microsoft monopoly and how they affect me.
I am a Senior Software Engineer at a successful publishing company. We have
both CD software and websites that we maintain. Our CD ROMs support both
Mac and Windows and the websites are Netscape & Microsoft compliant.
Recently I found that the newest versions of internet explore decide to
remove the code that supported the open standard for plug-ins. This in turn
caused some major ramification to how I have to handle multimedia on my
site. It seems that with out adding special code on my site that the user
can not view any of the multimedia even if they could before upgrading.
This is due to fact that some of the multimedia on my site is based off of
QuickTime format and not Microsoft own multimedia format. Now I am not
anti-Microsoft, but its decision to bundle its multimedia support with it
browser and then drop support for plug-ins causing others like QuickTime to
become inoperable, with out code modification, cost my company money. Had
Microsoft conformed to open standards in place in the industry, this would
not have happened? I am a user of both Windows and Internet Explore and I
feel that I have been harmed by Monopolistic activities. I feel that
Microsoft is bringing the old browser wars into multimedia industry and its
using it dominant stance in the browser market to do it. I will personally
say that I am worried about supporting other formats other than Microsoft's
because I can not afford to have users going out to my site and it not
function because Microsoft has decided not to support other technologies in
their browser.
Creighton Kirkendall
Senior Software Engineer
Hobsons
MTC-00024027
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25am
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,
karen griffon
914 s. main
milford, MI 48381
MTC-00024028
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i would like to voice my objection to the so called settlement that
Microsoft and the DoJ has made. the object in any settlement in to at least
punish the offending party (avoiding a more serious one if the case
continues). this settlement rewards microsoft more than it does anything
else. the decenting states settlement, while having more teeth, is likewise
not enough, but is much better than the DoJ's pat on the back.
Scott Jack
Butler, PA
MTC-00024030
From: Keith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe Microsoft is the biggest and most abusive monopoly in history. At
a time when *information* drives our economy, we, as business and personal
computer consumers, need choices in the tools we use to manage information.
Unfortunately, the only real choices we have are flavors from the same
monopoly. Microsoft has worked to squash competition, most noticeably in
their monopolistic crushing of Netscape. MS did not really need
[[Page 27421]]
to integrate their browser into their operating system and they certainly
did not need to give it away. They give very little away. I believe they
realized that browsers, because of the way plug-in programs could be
integrated, had the potential of becoming an operating system within an
operating system. There is no reason that browser plug-ins could not be
developed to handle most routine user requirements. Hence, they crush that
competition. Within their own product lines their behavior is that of a
monopoly. Take MS Works. It is probably the most simplistic software suite
available today. If we use the automotive industry as an analogy, it would
be a Yugo. If General Motors were a monopoly, they could offer only a Yugo
and a Buick. Consumers would realize the all-too-obvious limitations of the
Yugo (MS Works) and pay through the nose for the Buick (MS Office).
Additionally, MS monopoly behavior has produced unreliable operating
systems with huge security holes. They have no reason to care because there
is no competition. The DoJ should do the same thing to Microsoft that they
did to ``Ma Bell'' and split the company into a minimum of five
corporations. At least ``Ma Bell'' gave us the best phone system
in the world. The only thing of worldwide note that Microsoft has produced
is producing one of the world's richest men.
Eventually, some parts of the split MS company might re-merge, just as some
of the Bell units have. But, in the meantime, we would have a period when
investors could bring us truly competing companies, just as happened in the
telecommunications industry. Today, no one in their right mind would spend
anything to try to compete with the world's biggest monopoly. No one!
Without a breathing space created by a 5-way split up, we are doomed to
endure high prices and mediocre products, the hallmarks of a monopoly.
While I am a firm free-market advocate, American consumers do deserve
protection from certain levels of monopoly. If Microsoft does not meet that
threshold, no company ever will.
Sincerely,
Keith Ryan
Consultant
MTC-00024031
From: Irmgard Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00024031--0001
+5714 Carriage Barn Lane Montgomery, AL 36116
January 23, 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 opinion on an issue that I feel
is of great importance to the country and the economy: the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft case.
The case was a wrongheaded exercise of raw political power from the outset.
It operated from the faulty economic assumption that big is always bad. It
was prompted in great part by the inability of Microsoft's competitors to
compete not because Microsoft precluded them from competing, but because
their products just could not compete with the quality of Microsoft's.
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 hope the concessions made by Microsoft in the areas of systems
configuration, pricing, and industry relations will suffice to finally end
this case. It does the economy no good to have one of its main engines
locked away in Court. Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Irmgard Wilson
J0024031--0002
MTC-00024032
From: Jeanette Love
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:40am
Subject: Good Heavens
This whole thing is ridiculous! I swear that these cry baby companies are
just as bad as a bunch of ``petty jealous women''.
Has anyone ever thought that if those companies had a product as good as
the Microsoft products they wouldn't have these problems?
I buy Microsoft because they are good programs--I wouldn't have
Netscape on my computer and it irritates me to death to have to designate
which one I want to use.
As for AOL --what a farce. People can choose whichever one they want
to use from within the OS. As a matter of fact, I detest AOL as much as I
do Netscape. The first thing I do when I install a new OS is go in and
delete the junk about AOL, Prodigy etc--just don't want it there in my
way, cluttering up my machine.
Its time for the cry babies to just get over it and produce a better
product that people will want to use.
Nobody forces me to use Microsoft products--I use them because I
prefer them over any of the others.
Jeanette
[email protected]
MTC-00024033
From: Ralph Perna
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Perna
10414 Amblewood Dr.
Houston, Tx 77099-4105
January 25, 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,
Ralph Perna
MTC-00024034
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:43am
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,
Gaye Honeycutt
3508 West Magnolia Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91505-2911
MTC-00024035
From: Gregg Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48am
Subject: Proposed MS Anti-Trust Remedy
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft anti-trust
remedy on the grounds that it does not go far enough in sanctioning the
obvious anti-competitive tactics employed by Microsoft in its business
practices.
I further want to indicate my support for the views expressed in Dan
Kegel's ``Open Letter to the DOJ'' about the proposed settlement.
I have requested inclusion as a cosigner of that document.
Thank you.
Gregg Rice
[[Page 27422]]
Computer Consultant
Toledo, OH
MTC-00024036
From: Larry Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Leave microsoft alone! You don't have to use Explorer, it's an option.
Larry Bauer
MTC-00024037
From: Michael Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The currently proposed settlement will not sufficiently change the current
business practices of Microsoft. I find it completely absurd that anyone
would agree with it.
Michael Young
MTC-00024038
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48am
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,
Sharon Prechel
8654 E. Cypress ST.
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
MTC-00024039
From: R. Bradley Tilley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
Please stop Microsoft from taking advantage of users and businesses. Don't
allow them to keep their illegally obtained monopoly.
Their control of the PC market combined with their insatiable desire for
power and their total disregard for computer security will cause great
damage to businesses and home users in the future.
They continually produce insecure software and place it on computers all
over the world. There is no choice. Call Dell or Gateway computer
corporation and try to order a PC without Microsoft Windows installed, and
they will tell you that that isn't possible. There is NO choice.
Bring choice and freedom back to America's PC users!!!
Brad Tilley PBK
University of Virginia Tech
Phone: 540.231.6277
Web: http://bursar.vt.edu
Fax: 540.231.3238
MTC-00024040
From: Julie Mackert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a truly bad idea.
Julia Mackert
MTC-00024041
From: Dan Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing today to express my concern with the Microsoft Antitrust
Settlement. After reading through the settlement and many summaries I feel
there is at least one issue which must be addressed.
According to the settlement Microsoft will be forced to share its
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). While this is good the clause
demanding that any users of those APIs share their code with Microsoft is
ludicrous. Forcing companies to give their hard work and trade secrets on
products to Microsoft will cause two problems.
First, those companies that do give their code to Microsoft will be in the
same position that caused the antitrust case in the first place, Microsoft
will be able to undercut their competition and release bundled or stand-
alone products that compete with the original authors, but potentially uses
the original work.
Second, the amount of new entries into the market and investments in
research will more than likely be drastically reduced. If companies see
that Microsoft might be able to take all of their work for free then they
will be reluctant to invest the time and money to develop a new product.
APIs are a central part of an operating system. If Microsoft wishes to
publish an operating system as part of it's core business they should
publish open APIs and be done with it. This will level the playing field
and the best products will come to the top, rather than one company
deciding the market and forcing competitors out of business just because it
has the resources to do so.
Thank you for your time.
Dan Weeks
Harrison, New York
[email protected]
MTC-00024042
From: Eric Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please modify it to benefit the
entire computing industry, not just Micro$soft.
MTC-00024043
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06am
Subject: DOJ v Microsoft
Hi,
I feel that the proposed remedy agreed by the DOJ and Microsoft will not
have any benefical effect in curbing Microsoft abuse of its monopoly with
the computer market.
Due to the way Microsoft operates it is very hard for companies to move
away from the Microsoft products they have already installed because of
file compatibility or the ability to communicate with customers.
It appears from information circulating around various security new groups
that Windows 2000 makes surious DNS (Domain Naming System) requests when
communicating with Non-Microsoft DNS Servers (a cumulative effect which can
slow down a Network!). The Fix is to install a Windows based DNS Server
(for which you have to pay client access licenses), while on Unix you do
not.
Microsoft due to its size and cash can enter any market and spent its way
to dominate the market.
Microsoft needs to be split into the following divisions:
1. Operating Systems (Intel X86, Itanium)
2. Embedded Systems (PDAs, ATMs)
3. Application Development (Development Tools)
4. Internet Systems (including IE, BizTalk)
5. Office Applications (Office, Exchange)
6. Business Partnerships (other businesses which Microsoft has bought
completely or has more than 5%)
Microsoft should also publish the complete API for Windows, and publish
common inport/export formats for all applications to permit free movement
of information into and out from all Microsoft products. eg Office,
Outlook, etc.
Regards
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024044
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:05am
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,
Doris Urquhart
21 Woodvale Ave.
Fishkill, NY 12524-1112
[[Page 27423]]
MTC-00024045
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06am
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,
sharon Culpepper
2526 Washington
dubuque, IA 52001
MTC-00024046
From: Jim Weage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft
It is time to drop the Microsoft lawsuit.
Thank you, D. Jmaes Weage
2420 Larry Road
Clarksville, TN 37043
MTC-00024047
From: Jess Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed Settlement with Microsoft is a bad deal for the
people of the United States.
I have signed on as co-signer of Dan Kegel's petition: ``Open Letter
to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement''
I ask that you seriously consider the suggestions for correcting the flaws
and closing the loop holes pointed out by Mr. Kegel.
Sincerely
Joseph Collins
MTC-00024048
From: Adam Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in opposition to the settlement proposed between Microsoft and
the Department of Justice. It will not lessen the monopoly power of
Microsoft over the software industry. The settlement may even have the
reverse effect ... secure in the knowledge that they can do whatever they
wish without adverse consequences, Microsoft may now exert their power to
take over new emerging areas of the technology arena.
Microsoft claims it wants and needs the ability to innovate. If so, the
same applies to all other companies in the computing industry. But
Microsoft's monopoly power denies this ability to any company that would
like to compete against them. It is preferable to impair Microsoft a little
in this regard, especially since they have been found guilty, to level the
playing field for everyone. Why should Microsoft be able to innovate while
they keep their potential competitors from doing so?
You, the Department of Justice, have proven in a court of law that
Microsoft has done wrong. The next step should be significant punishment,
not encouragement to continue to do wrong. Please live up to the name of
your department. Discard this settlement and pursue real justice.
Thank you
--Adam Glass
MTC-00024049
From: Allen Barnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Summary
The Revised Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in the case Civil Action No.
98-1232 (CKK), United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation
(defendant), and Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) State of New York,
ex. rel. vs. Microsoft Corporation, does not appear to achieve the mandate
given in the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in Case No.
00-5212/00-5213, namely, ``to ``unfetter a market
from anticompetitive conduct,'' ([a quote from] Ford Motor Co., 405
U.S. at 577), 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,'' [a quote from] United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391
U.S. 244, 250 (1968).''
The PFJ fails to meet the appeals court mandate in, at least, the three
following areas:
1. The PFJ provides no effective enforcement mechanism.
2. The PFJ fails to address the free software movement.
3. The PFJ does not effectively prohibit anticompetitive pricing practices.
Therefore, this resolution is not in the public interest and should not be
adopted without substantial revisions.
Discussion
1. Enforcement
In his testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
on December 12, 2001
(http://judiciary.senate.gov/te121201f-lessig.htm), Professor Lawrence
Lessig thoroughly discusses the failure of the PFJ to provide an effective
enforcement mechanism. The lack of a ``special master, or panel of
masters'' to resolve disagreements about application of the terms of
the consent decree efficiently is a ``fatal weakness''. The
duties and power of a special master are spelled out in detail in section N
of ``Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedial Proposal''
(http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remedy--filing.pdf). As
Professor Lessig states, the personal computer field changes so rapidly
that by the time matters are litigated in a traditional manner, the
original complaint is usually moot.
Further, neither the special master nor the Technical Committee envisioned
by the PFJ should be selected by, or under any financial obligation, to the
defendant. They should be United States federal employees with their own
staffs and offices. Finally, to insure that there are no conflicts of
interest, the proceedings of the special master and/or technical committee
must be open to public inspection, subject to the privacy of third parties
bringing complaints under the PFJ.
2. Free Software
The PFJ gives the defendant too much scope to prevent disclosure of
interoperability data to developers of competing software. For example,
there are several operating systems which are capable of running on the
same hardware as Windows Operating System Products, several of which are
free software. (The nature of ``free software'' meant here is
discussed in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) However, the PFJ
specifically states that the defendant does not have to reveal
interoperability information to any entity which the defendant deems as not
having a authentic and viable business (section III.J.2). This appears to
be deliberate attempt to prevent free software implementations of Windows
Operating System compatible products. Since many of these projects are
entirely volunteer-based, there is no corporate entity which can be said to
be a business.
Further, such intellectual property which the defendant is required to
disclose will be available only under Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
licensing terms (section III.I.1). Free software developers cannot afford
even the most modest licensing fees since there is no direct financial
return on their work. Therefore, all documentation of APIs, Communication
Protocols and other intellectual property made available to commercial
entities must be made available on a royalty-free basis to free software
developers.
3. Anticompetitive Pricing
The PFJ requires that the defendant publish a uniform schedule for
royalties on Windows Operating System Products. It then lists several
exceptions whereby certain OEMs may be offered discounts, specifically that
the top-most ten and next top-most ten licensees of Windows Operating
System Products are granted special status (section III.B). Such
differentiation will have a substantial, negative impact on small OEM
computer businesses, so-called regional ``white-box'' (i.e., no
brand name) vendors.
During the trial, it was observed that, over time, the cost of the Windows
Operating System has been an increasing percentage of the cost of a
personal computer. Therefore,
[[Page 27424]]
even the most modest variations in the price of the operating system can
make a substantial difference in the cost of a computer. Regional vendors
who do not have access to the top twenty vendor discounts will face a
substantial disadvantage selling low-cost systems. Further, since they are
not ``Covered OEMs'', there appears to be no restraint on
retaliation against these vendors for offering Non-Microsoft Operating
Systems Products.
Conclusion
In spite of Attorney General John Ashcroft's statement that the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment ``completely addressed the anti-competitive
conduct outlined by the Court of Appeals'', the PFJ still allows
exclusionary practices to continue. It does not effectively lower the
barrier to entry of competitors into the operating systems market; instead,
it strengthens the defendant's position by erecting new barriers whereby
the defendant can determine who receives information necessary to produce
interoperating or competing software.
These areas must be addressed before the PFJ can be considered a suitable
resolution to this case.
Sincerely,
Douglas Allen Barnett, Jr., President
lignum Computing, Inc.
Pattersonville, NY
MTC-00024050
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No to Microsoft!
MTC-00024051
From: Kurt Sorrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my firm belief that the proposed settlement regarding the anti-trust
case against Microsoft is inadequate. In fact, it will only serve to
entrench the company by exsposing children to Microsoft's products
exclusively. Consequently, putting competeing software companies, and their
products, at a tangible disadvantage in the maketplace. This is the exact
opposite remedy sought by the United States and it's citizens.
Respectfully,
Kurt Sorrell
MTC-00024052
From: James.William
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 8:18am
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement....
I think the Microsoft settlement does not go far enough. The stranglehold
of Microsoft on innovation in this country has stifled any opportunity for
real competition until they are a defacto standard in the workplace.
Nothing that I have sen in the settlement actually addresses this issue. If
it doesn't work on Windows it doesn't get produced. Even Apple has been
unable or unwilling to fight Microsoft because of the money and power they
wield not only in the marketplace but in the schools, governments, and
other businesses.
By using their marketing expertise and their fiduciary clout they have
either weakened or destrroyed any real competition in browser software,
operating systems, and office software. They are even trying to stifle
complaints by adding conditions to their licensing. That is the action of a
company that is afriad of dissent and willing to do anything to control it
-- actions that only a monopoly would even attempt.
Please keep Microsoft from running an entire industry! They are even trying
to get into the hardware side with their X-box machine. Thanks for
listening.
Bill James
2937 Arthur Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
O:(615)849-4344
H:(615)907-8234
MTC-00024053
From: David Jantzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:25am
Subject: Proposed settlement will extend MS monopoly
The suggested remedy in the Microsoft antitrust case is not an adequate
reprimand for the illegal behaviors through which Microsoft has maintained
its monopoly. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that the remedy would
successfully curtail future monopolistic behaviors; rather, it will merely
result in the indoctrination of an entire new generation into the use of
Microsoft products.
As a software developer, my greatest concerns are 1) the closed file
formats that Microsoft regularly modifies, resulting in broken
compatibility with competing software products; 2) proprietary extensions
to open standards (the so called ``embrace and extend'' tactic)
that hinder interoperability with non-Microsoft products; and 3) the highly
restrictive licenses to which Microsoft holds PC manufacturers, which
appear to prevent the factory installation of competing operatings systems
alongside of Windows.
A world in which file formats and communication protocols are open
standards, and in which PC manufacturer's have greater freedom, will result
in much enhanced competition and hence a better experience for the
consumer.
Sincerely,
David Jantzen
Seattle, WA
MTC-00024054
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:24am
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 M. House
107 Fieldcrest Rd.
Bristol, TN 37620-4505
MTC-00024055
From: Ray Semiraglio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As someone who makes their living in the computer industry, I know how much
is at stake in the antitrust ruling against Microsoft. As such, I feel that
I should make my opinion known. In my mind there are many problems with
thesettlement, and many issues that it does not address. Microsoft has
managed to gain complete control over the operating system market, the
``productivity'' softwaremarket, the internet browser market, and
is making major inroads into the hand-held and streaming media markets. I
don't profess to know how to best rein Microsoft in from their anti-
competitive behavior, but I do know one thing that might go a long way
towards helping.
However they got into their position of power, Microsoft has gained a great
deal because of it. Their stock is still considered one of the best
performing out there, and they are rumored to have over $36 billion in the
bank. This last point is my problem. Microsoft has said repeatedly that
they are at risk of being superceded by any company out there with a better
idea. I agree that this is apossibility, as long as that company also has
$36 billion in the bank. This bankroll lets them sell at a loss or give
away software to kill competitors. It lets them buy
``innovation'' and weather bad economic times. It's been alleged
that they use their vast storehouse of cash to smooth over earnings speed
bumps. This as much as anything else gives them an unfair advantage over
anyone who played by the rules and didn't establish and maintain an illegal
monopoly.
More importantly, they gained this money through their anti-competitive
behavior. To let them retain the bulk of the cash that was gained via (as
per the findings of fact) illegal behavior would be like letting burglars
keep their stolen merchandise after being convicted. So my view on the
settlement is that Microsoft should be monetarily penalized, both to even
the playing field, and to remove their ``ill-gotten gains.''
Whether this cash should be re-distributed to stock holders, Windows users,
Netscape, charity, or if it just ends up with the lawyers is for the courts
to decide. But allowing them to keep it will ensure that Microsoft will be
back in court again.
Thank you
Raymond Semiraglio Jr.
[[Page 27425]]
MTC-00024056
From: Kurt Sorrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the anti-trust case against Microsoft Corp.
should be abandoned. Instead of providing relief to consumers, it will
further entrench their dominance in the marketplace.
Respectfully,
Kurt Sorrell
MTC-00024057
From: Glenn Hauman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What an incredibly bad idea. The current settlement gives a slap on the
wrist to a perjuring recidivist abuser of monoploy power. If the impetus in
removing the Judge at the late date was because granting an interview
showed bias, I would suggest that not charging Microsoft with perjury for
introducing doctored videotapes at trial is a strong repudiation of that
argument.
Furthermore, the arguments that there is no suitable remedy because the
damage has already been done, we can't fix the damage to Microsoft's
competitiors is morally equivalent to saying ``we can't bring someone
back to life, so let's not charge murderers with crimes.''
The company should be busted open, either its code or its corporate
structure.
Best--
Glenn Hauman
President, BiblioBytes
Weehawken, NJ
MTC-00024058
From: dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:30am
Subject: microsoft settelment
I do not like it at all
MTC-00024059
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:33am
Subject: Life, Liberty, and Property
``The only action taken against Microsoft should be a statue of Bill
Gates erected in the Center of Settle.''
Bill Gates and Microsoft have commited no crime. They have created product
and services which companies and people have willingly purchased.
Every man has a right to the fruit of his efforts. That includes the
corporation he forms. If his product becomes so popular that everyone needs
it than he has done his job correctly.
This is America. Where John Adams and our founders set up an evironment of
freedom, not governmental trials and lynchings.
-Joel S
MTC-00024060
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I guess I must not be too bright but I just don't understand why the
government keeps dragging out this settlement with Microsoft. As a
registered voter who exercises my right to vote in every election I urge
you to settle this matter and get on with other things that are really
important!
The fact that the government brought this action in the first place amazes
me. It has always appeared to me that Microsoft built a better mouse trap.
The general public liked the new mouse trap and bought them by the
millions. Seeing that the mouse trap was so successful, Microsoft made it
easier to use and interact with the mouse trap. This upset the other mouse
trap manufacturer's who ran to the government whining that they couldn't
fairly compete because Microsoft's mouse trap was so much better and
popular. These competitors hired powerful lobbyists so the government then
agreed to try and make it more difficult for Microsoft to make and sell so
many of their better mouse traps. Free enterprise becomes very expensive
for Microsoft and it's stock holders, employees and customers who all
suffer as this drags on. Can Checker's get the government to go after
McDonald's because they sell more hamburgers? I think KMart should have you
close a few Wal-Marts and Targets to save their butts. This whole thing has
been nothing more that sour grapes from the companies who aren't as smart
at Microsoft but have the money to hire the right lobbyists.
PLEASE settle and let the businesses who are hiding behind the government's
power work on building their own better mouse trap.
Sincerely,
Connie Hall
Clearwater, Florida
MTC-00024061
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:30am
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,
Peang Gafour
7405 Parkwood Ct.# 301
Falls Church, VA 22042
MTC-00024062
From: Ron Wielage
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/25/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re.: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
In response to the request for comments in USDOJ vs Microsoft in accordance
with the Tunney Act I ask that such settlement be rejected.
Having read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, as proposed by USDOJ and
Microsoft, and having read the proposed judgment by the nine states, and
having understood that the purpose of the Tunney act to solicit feedback
from US citizens affected by the outcome of a final judgment is to make
sure that any such final judgment is in the best interest of the consumer,
I now submit the following:
1. That, in order to be in the interest of the consumer, it seems fair that
any such judgment can be clearly understood by the consumer.
2. That, while the Revised Proposed Final Judgment may be comprehensible by
the attorneys who drafted it, I cannot clearly comprehend its implications.
3. That I can comprehend the proposed judgment by the nine states and that
the proposed judgment by the nine states meets my needs for creating an
environment in which it can buy at a fair price what has become a
ubiquitous product in a non-competitive market place.
Therefore I have placed my signature below to signify my desire that the
court reject the proposed USDOJ vs Microsoft final judgment and instead
adopts the remedies in the proposed final judgment of the nine states as
the final judgment.
Sincerely,
Ron Wielage
MTC-00024063
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:31am
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.
[[Page 27426]]
Sincerely,
Mark Peterson
7715 SE Lambert St
Portland, OR 97206-8550
MTC-00024064
From: Peter Mengaziol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft As Monopoly
The US Government must stop Microsoft from extending its reach into any
other aspects for the simple reason that it has shown itself to force
control over information to its own ends no matter what the cost to the
consumer. Its monopolistic practices have kept alternatives out of reach
for many people to the detriment of all users worldwide.
Besides creating the shoddiest sort of operating environment available it
has attempted to control the ``content'' of documents via its
Smart Tags technology which can add linkages that were not intended by the
original authors of the document. This meddling with information is too
frightening in its implications. If Smart Tagging can alter documents in
any case, can the user be sure that this will NEVER be done under ANY
cicumstances with or without the users knowledge of it???
The US Government must also remove its dependency on Microsoft products for
its own useage since the levels of insecurity that Microsoft products
provide is deplorable. There are several valid alteratives that must be
deployed so that the US Goverment itself is not beholden to a single
information technology provider (Linux, UNIX, MacOSX)
Peter Mengaziol
MTC-00024065
From: John Durrant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
surely everyone who gets into business gains market share at the expense of
some one else and the aim is to make as much cash for yuorself as possible.
The fact that others are not as successful does not give them a right to
complain.The opportunity to use other browsers within windows is not denied
users, it just takes a little more effort. I have never seen the problem
here and still dont. My feeling is that this has been seen as a way of
inhibiting rivals and opening the possibility of free cash using lawyers
not core business strategy and effort.
john
MTC-00024066
From: Mel Krewall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:36am
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft Antitrust case
It is my opinion that the current proposed settlement with Microsoft is
wholly inadequate to make any change to Microsoft's business practices.
They have already entered into two consent decrees and have been found
guilty in this third instance. I hope the court will reexamine a breakup of
the company, which I believe will be the only way any curb can be placed on
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
Mel Krewall
Fort Worth, TX
MTC-0024067
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed MS DOJ Settlement in a BAD Idea. I believe the
settlement is not in proportion to the extremly illegal and monopolistic
acts taken by MS.
The govermnent should not have settle so easily, MS needs much stricter
penalties.
Edward S Lentz
Programer/Analyst GSK
MTC-00024068
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:35am
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,
Richard Dillard
249 2nd Street
Wyandotte, MI 48192
MTC-00024069
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:36am
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,
John Blackburn
606 Pineridge Drive
Oakdale, PA 15071-9370
MTC-00024071
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re.: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
In response to the request for comments in USDOJ vs Microsoft in accordance
with the Tunney Act I ask that such settlement be rejected. Having read the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, as proposed by USDOJ and Microsoft, and
having read the proposed judgment by the nine states, and having understood
that the purpose of the Tunney act to solicit feedback from US citizens
affected by the outcome of a final judgment is to make sure that any such
final judgment is in the best interest of the consumer, I now submit that
that the proposed judgment by the nine states better meets my company's
needs for creating an environment in which it can buy at a fair price what
has become a ubiquitous product in a non-competitive market place.
Therefore I signify my desire that the court reject the proposed USDOJ vs
Microsoft final judgment and instead adopts the remedies in the proposed
final judgment of the nine states as the final judgment.
Sincerely,
Trio Data Systems
Ron Wielage
President
MTC-00024072
From: Charles Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I feel that, as a citizen who is concerned with the future freedoms of
expression in our country, that action should be taken to prevent Microsoft
from furthering their strangle hold over computer users. Please consider
alternatives that will assure that citizens have choices when considering
what products and services they have available to them.
I thank you.
Charles Jennings
PO Box 25292
Miami, FL
33102
MTC-00024073
From: Eric Hilferding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am the President and CEO of Shirts & Caps in Zephyrhills, Florida. we
are in the decorated garment & promotional product
[[Page 27427]]
industry. My company also has developed a few software packages for Windows
and Macintosh platforms. I have been interested and purchasing computer
equipment for my business since 1982. It has been my observation that
Microsoft has with out a doubt been acting outside fair practices. Many
software packages that I have used that where better than any other product
available where destroyed by the Microsoft methods of marketing. They have
forced incompatabilities, and manuvered compediting products out of the
marketplace--not through providing a better product or a better
price--but through manipulating the customers access to the product.
The Windows operating system has been the vehicle that Microsoft has used
to push its other software packages. The most notable of these
``incidents'' are as you know, the competing operating systems of
PS/2, Linux, Macintosh. The most notable program Nestscape
Navigator--a far superior product that was copied and killed by
Microsoft. As a fledgling software developer we often joke about if we make
it big one of two things will happen--Microsoft buys us out or kills
our programs. I have no desire to compete with a company that uses the type
of business practices that Microsoft uses.
It is my feeling that the only way to fix the problem is to split Microsoft
into a minimum of 3 parts--the operating system, hardware and the
software branches. Microsoft has now entered the hardware market with
xbox--a fully functioning pentium 733. The only way to keep the
playing field level is to break the unfair advantage that Microsoft abuses
with its three branches. At the minimum the software and operating systems
need to be split. I heard about the Microsft proposed settlement offer to
donate to schools. I belive this was a manuver that was attempting to gain
market share against one of only 2 OS competitors left--Apple. This
attempt on their part signals that they do not entend to cooperate nor do
they recoqnize the decision of the judge that determined they are in
violation of anti-trust laws. They continue to act in arrogant defiance in
the face of the United States of America and its people.
Thank you,
Eric Hilferding
Shirts & Caps
Zephyrhills, Florida
getyourshirts.com
MTC-00024074
From: Bruce Buckelew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been
converted to attachment.]
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.
In my experience, the judgment does not address one of the most critical
issues Microsoft causes through their practices. The administration of the
EULA for MS Windows 95 and Windows 98 attempts to obsolete millions of
perfectly good computers by preventing the use of MS Windows products
EVENTHOUGH THESE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN PAID FOR. The effect on schools, non
profits and the poor, not to mention the environment, is devastating. For
the past several years, since my retirement from the computer industry, I
have run computer reuse facilities that refurbish and place computers in
the Oakland Public Schools. We (several business partners, the School
District, hundreds of student workers and more hundreds of volunteers have
placed over 5000 computers in classrooms and labs and over 2500 in student
homes.
We run a very low overhead operation with donated equipment, warehouse
space and labor.
I have pasted the quotes from Microsoft webpages below on ``Guidelines
for Accepting Donated Computers'' and would like to comment on them in
context.
You can see them at the following website.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/?ID=DonatedComputers
I have also pasted an apparent internal MS memo with further guidelines.
Our main expense has always been the purchase of Microsoft products. Often
this must be done WHERE THERE WAS LIKELY A PRODUCT (Windows 95 or 98)
already purchased. Most companies don't keep the license with the computer.
Most companies that I have worked with purchased their computers from
vendors that preinstalled the software (Dell, Compaq, IBM, Toshiba, etc.).
It is my experience that most Pentium level computers CAME WITH WINDOWS
originally. If I read the antitrust case correctly, OEMs were REQUIRED to
install Windows if they wanted to maintain their relationships with
Microsoft. If this is indeed the case, THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD BE THAT THE
OPERATING SYSTEM IS INCLUDED EVEN IF YOU CANNOT FIND THE DOCUMENTATION.
Microsoft could have made this very easy. They could have said ``If
you receive a computer from one of the following vendors (include a list
such as the above) and it is a P75 or greater, you can assume that it came
with Windows 95. If it is a PII 266 or greater, assume Windows 98. See
Microsoft's answer to question #1 below. If there is a legal
requirement that the software remain with the hardware, you shouldn't need
any special documentation of the license to make it legal.
I have worked with Compaq Services and they can tell me exactly what
software was originally installed. Through them, I can prove that W95 or
W98 was purchased from Microsoft. This is not, according to MS, sufficient.
They would like an additional, secon purchase. In any case, because of the
risk of Microsoft either coming after me/you for software piracy or the
desire not to make Microsoft mad because they might give me/you something
in the future, most recyclers want to lay low and not take MS on.
This is because we want to best help our clients/customers and we know that
they will be using MS products in the workplace, school, libraries, etc and
want to get them what is most useful. In any case, in order to stay
completely legal, our organization has used our scarce resources to buy MS
products when we were pretty sure that they had already been purchased for
these machines.
This is appalling.
What is more appalling is the lack of an aftermarket for MS products. You'd
think, 5 or 6 years after it came out, that you could buy a copy of Win95
for $5 or $10. It would be great if you could buy it from MS, BUT THEY ONLY
SELL THE CURRENT STUFF THAT WON'T run on the older machines. They will
sometimes graciously tell you that if you buy a current version (what does
XP cost, $1497), you can run a prior version, but I haven't seen this on
their web site.
If you go to a local computer show, you can find Win95 for $10, but MS says
it is not legal. They have been going after resellers on Ebay, lately.
Why is MS so afraid of their older products? The reason is that the emperor
has no clothes. The product hasn't actually gotten any better to do the
things that I want. Windows XP has absolutely nothing that I need that I
can't get in Windows 95 or 98 with a few free addons from the Internet
(Realplayer, Netscape, etc., etc., etc.).
MS wants an all XP world. But what would such a thing do to the world? It
would make millions of computers obsolete and headed for landfill. Do you
realize how few older computers can run XP?
What should MS really do if they wanted to help with the digital divide
issue? Very simple. Make Window 95 or 98 free to non-profits (as so many
other companies have done with their products). We could use it for
schools, community centers and on computers that we send to homes of people
that don't have computers. I actually think this would help MS in the long
run (which I don't mind) and it would sure give millions access that don't
have access today. Reviewing the second document from Microsoft (below)
makes me understand why MS is finally interested in this issue (besides
ridding themselves of the class action lawsuit). The MS marketing folks are
spending a lot of time telling their (angry) corporate customers why it is
so hard to donate their excess equipment to the public schools and other
non-profits. It has nothing to do with trying to bridge the digital divide.
MS doesn't have that much good will. The settlement proposal is the
crudest, most transparent attempt I've seen for MS to TRY to look like a
good corporate citizen when they have been responsible for the problem from
the outset. The following in quotes comes from MS website with comments by
me (in CAPS, not in quotes.) http://www.microsoft.com/education/
?ID=DonatedComputers ``A Guide to Accepting Donated Computers for Your
School
``The decision to accept or decline an offer of donated computers for
your school can be complicated. There are many important questions to ask,
including:
Will the computer run the software that your school currently uses?''
[[Page 27428]]
USUALLY YES, UNLESS MS HAS SOLD THE SCHOOL DISTRICT A BILL OF GOODS TO TRY
TO GO TO ALL XP.
``What is the cost of integrating the hardware into your existing
networks?''
USUALLY IT IS CHEAPER TO INTEGRATE A RECYCLED COMPUTER THAN A NEW ONE. YOU
NEED A LESS EXPENSIVE LOCKDOWN DEVICE. YOU CAN PROVIDE SPARES. MOST OF THE
COMPUTERS INSTALLED ARE LIKELY THE CLASS OF THE RECYCLED ONES. A MORE
INTERESTING QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE REAL COST OF REPLACING YOU EXISTING
COMPUTERS WITH NEW ONES.
``Will your teachers or students need additional training to use the
computer?''
USUALLY, NO. THEY WILL NEED IT, HOWEVER, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAKES THE
MISTAKE OF GOING TO XP TOO EARLY.
``To help you in your decision-making process, we encourage you to
read the article Donating used Computers to Schools: Boom or Bust? If you
feel it is in the best interest of your school to accept the donated PCs,
make sure that the hardware donation includes the original operating system
software. Keeping the operating system with the PC is not just a great
benefit it is a legal requirement.''
IF IT IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, SHOULDN'T IT BE ON MICROSOFT TO PROVE THAT A
COPY WASN'T PURCHASED (USING THE GUIDELINES MENTIONED ABOVE), ESPECIALLY IF
IT WAS A NAME BRAND COMPUTER?
Questions and Answers
Q. Why should a donor include the operating system with their PC donation?
A. It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain
with a machine for the life of the machine. If a company or individual
donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating
system that was installed on the PC.
THEREFORE, WE CAN ASSUME THAT ANY COMPUTER THAT ORIGINALLY HAD MS SOFTWARE
STILL HAS IT. EVEN WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTATION.
MTC-00024074-0005
Q. What does the donor need to do to donate a PC with the operating system?
A. PC owners have to transfer their license rights to the operating system
to your school along with the PC. They may do so as specified in their End-
User License Agreement (received at the time of purchase) as part of a
permanent sale or transfer of the PC.
FOLLOWING QUESTION 1, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OPTION. IT MUST GO WITH THE
COMPUTER. WHY REQUIRE LOTS OF ADDITIONAL (HARD TO FIND) DOCUMENTATION?
Q. How does the PC owner transfer their license rights for the operating
system? A. The following should be included with the donation of the PC.
All copies of the software on original disk or CD, including back-up and/or
recovery materials
Manuals and printed materials
End-User License Agreement
Certificate(s) of Authenticity
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
Q. What if the donor can't find the backup CDs, End-Use License Agreement,
End-User manual and the Certificate of Authenticity? Can they still donate
the PC and operating system?
A. Microsoft recommends that educational institutions only accept computer
donations that are accompanied by proper operating system documentation. If
the donor cannot provide this documentation, it is recommended that you
decline the donated PC(s).
WHAT DOES MICROSOFT RECOMMEND BE DONE WITH THIS PC? SHOULD IT GO TO
LANDFILL? WHAT A SHAME WHEN IT IS SO USABLE AND THEIR IS SUCH A NEED?
INTERESTING THAT MS DOESN'T SUGGEST THE SCHOOL FIND AN APPROPRIATE
OPERATING SYSTEM. TOO BAD THEY DON'T SAY, ``IF THIS COMPUTER
ORIGINALLY CAME WITH A MS OPERATING SYSTEM...SEE ABOVE LIST...IT CAN BE
RELOADED WITH THE EQUIVALENT...BECAUSE MS HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR IT.
THE ARROGANCE. DECLINE THE DONATED PCS? HOW ABOUT GIVING THEM TO ME AND
I'LL PUT NEWDEAL ON THEM AND GIVE THEM TO FAMILIES. I MIGHT PUT A STICKER
ON IT THAT SAYS THAT ``THIS COMPUTER ORIGINALLY CAME WITH A MICROSOFT
OPERATING SYSTEM, BUT, SINCE WE CAN'T FIND THE ORIGINAL CD, YOU'RE JUST OUT
OF LUCK...ASK AROUND, PERHAPS A FRIEND OF YOURS HAS THE ORIGINAL CD AND YOU
CAN LOAD IT (IF YOU HAVE ALL THE REST OF
MTC-00024074-0006
THE DOCUMENTATION.''
Q. Can I upgrade the operating system on a donated machine? A. Yes, once
the machine and installed operating system is transferred to your school or
institution you own the PC and the licensed software. You can upgrade via
Microsoft Academic Licensing Programs: Microsoft School Agreement
Subscription, Microsoft Campus Agreement Subscription, Microsoft Academic
Open or Microsoft Academic Select. Contact your preferred Microsoft
Authorized Education Reseller for details.
THE OTHER ANSWER IS THAT IF THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR A SCHOOL, YOU CAN
OFTEN BUY A LICENSE FOR AN OLDER OPERATING SYSTEM AT A REDUCED PRICE USING
SCHOOL PRICING. THE PRICE FOR OFFICE 98 LICENSE (NO MEDIA) IS SLIGHTLY
UNDER $50 AT THE CURRENT TIME. I'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK MS IS TRYING TO
STOP DOING THIS WITH THE NEW XP LICENSING NONSENSE.
Following is an apparently MS Internal document dealing with this issue.
Again I have added comments in CAPS.
[[Donated PCs and the Transfer of the MS OS.doc]]
[[DONATED PCs OEM QA.doc]] Please feel free to forward any of
these documents to the agencies that are donating the community centers
computers w/out an OS.
Best regards,
Robin Willett
Microsoft Education Solutions Group
Phone 800.426.9400x 11648
Fax 425.936.7329
[email protected] http://www.Microsoft.corn/education
Empowering people through great software anytime, anyplace, and on any
device.
LETTER STARTS HERE
Donated PCs and the Transfer of the Microsoft Operating System
MTC-00024074--0007
Background for 9/6/00 Conference Call
Background: Donations of used or outdated machines by businesses and
government organizations to K-12 schools and charities worldwide is
increasing. Today, 10% of all newly acquired PCs going into K-12 are
donated, approx 250,000 machines. (This number is forecasted to grow
significantly over the next few years.) Many times these PCs arrive without
an operating system, or if the OS is included, without the legal
documentation or proof of license for the OS.
Schools and charities that receive these machines are not able to purchase
a bootable desktop operating system from Microsoft and there hasn't been
clear communication around our policy, a systematic process, or self-serve
set of tools for transferring licenses with donated hardware. This has
resulted in customer satisfaction issues for the schools and charities
receiving the equipment and the organizations (many being our enterprise
customers) making the donations. As a result, most of our reps are spending
cycles on this issue with their customers. SO MICROSOFT IS INTERESTED
BECAUSE OF ``CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ISSUES''. ANGRY CUSTOMERS THAT
CAN'T DONATE THEIR SURPLUS EQUIPMENT TO THE SCHOOLS.
Long Term Solution: Microsoft does not endorse the use of second-hand
hardware in schools; in fact we actively position the benefits of using the
latest hardware and software technology to schools, teachers and students.
However, PC donations continue to grow and requests to Microsoft have
increased over the past 12 months to the point where a solution is required
to minimize field overhead and better satisfy customers. Because education
customers represent such a large percentage of the entities receiving
recycled PC's the education group has led a cross-company effort to
implement solution.
THERE ARE NO BENEFITS. JUST COSTS.
First, a website has been created to serve as the primary source of
information for all Microsoft customers concerning the issues of donating
and receiving recycled pc's with Microsoft software. The website is
designed to educate and inform all parties involved with donated machines,
from the businesses and governments making the donations to the schools and
charities who are receiving them. Most importantly the web site will
clarify how to donate a machine to a school or non-profit organization.
This will include clear messaging of the legal requirement that the
original OS stay with the machine and that naked machines should not be
accepted. It will also provide a downloadable legal document acting as
proof of ownership for those organizations donating machines, but unable to
locate the EULA, COA, and back-
[[Page 27429]]
up discs required when transferring the OS. With this the school or charity
will have legal proof in the form of a document signed by the donating
organization that they are licensed for the OS.
In addition, the web site will provide a simplified process for donating
Select, Enterprise Agreement, and Open licenses to a school or non-profit.
To support this, the website includes a simple online license transfer tool
that requires the donating organization to enter all pertinent data from
their volume license agreement. After entering the required and validated
data the business will be given access to the legal document that grants
transfer rights to another entity. Microsoft will have access to and track
the information about the licenses being transferred by each account. This
process automation will reduce field, customer, and business-desk time and
enable our volume license customers to transfer licenses with donated
equipment in a simple and secure way.
However, after spending several months developing a solution it became
evident that ownership of the policy and process needs to reside in WW
Licensing. They have agreed to add this to the plate of the new K12/HEd
license person when they are hired, but this will be low on the priority
list given all the other immediate needs.
Proposed Short Term Solution: Given the growing customer satisfaction
issues and the time the reps are investing in this issue, I believe that we
need to put a short term solution in place that consists of more than Jane,
Andrea and I fielding customer and rep questions and communicating that a
website should be available shortly (we've been saying this for 6 months.)
Therefore I am proposing that we launch the PC recycling website so that
there is a place to point customers for information upon request. We will
not proactively market the website. In addition, there will be no one
fielding questions around the site--the reps will need to do this with
help from us as needed.
Pros:
Reps/telesales have a place to direct customers
Allows us to capture customer data from those donating PCs and transferring
the OS licenses that can be audited later
Cons:
Any questions that arise around the site will need to be fielded by the
reps of field. There will not be an alias where customers can send
questions.
The website could be changed/pull down once WW licensing takes ownership of
the policy Timeline: The website described above is near completion -it
requires some revisions to the content and database prior to being propped.
It is estimated that the changes will take about 4 to 6 hours by a web
developer. Website: You can view the contents of the website on the test
server at:
http://internet-build2/giving/dpcs.htm
Here is link to the database without the required changes (problem with a
couple of fields-- state/province and license# with OEM product.):
http://fasteddy/education/license/pcrecycle/default.asp
Once a customer has inputted the required information, they will have
access to the appropriate transfer letters.
OEM Licensing Q&A
Q. I just received a (new or used) PC with Windows installed on it. How can
I tell whether my PC is legally licensed?
ANSWER: To ensure you are getting genuine Microsoft software with your PC
purchase, you should first look for the Certificate of Authenticity (COA)
Label affixed to you PC. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/how/
coa.asp THIS DIDN'T START UNTIL WINDOWS 98 SECOND EDITION AND WASN'T
APPLIED UNIFORMLY MY BUSINESSES DUE TO LAG TIMES WITH MICROSOFT.
Q. I got my new system with a COA but w/o a MS CD, is it still legal?
ANSWER: Depending on your source for software you may or may NOT have an
Edge-to-Edge CD included with your PC. Please check this web site for
further clarification.
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/how/coa.asp
Q. Some of my PCs are not licensed for Windows full OS. How do 1 get a
legally licensed OS for my PCs?
ANSWER: Contact your local OEM/SB who can sell you OS bundled with computer
hardware for your existing PCs.
Q. Is it illegal to purchase a naked PC? INTERESTING USE OF TERMS TO
DESCRIBE MILLIONS OF PCS EVERY YEAR.
ANSWER: It's not illegal. However, you may end up paying more for your OS
if one was not pre-installed by the System Builder. If you do not have an
OS pre-installed you have only two options to obtain a full OS:
Purchase an OEM license with additional hardware from your OEM/System
Builder
Buy the FULL-PACKAGED PRODUCT from a retail store
It is important to note that all new machines should come with a bootable
operating system pre-installed (i.e., MS-DOS with Windows 3.11, OS/2,
etc.). For example, a customer who has an OEM version of MS-DOS 6.22 and
Windows 3.11 pre-installed on a new machine is eligible to acquire a
Windows 98 Version Upgrade or enroll in Windows Upgrade Advantage or he/she
may acquire a Windows 2000 Pro Competitive Upgrade. The Select 5.0, Select
4.0, Select 3.0 and Open License programs only offer upgrade licenses, so
the customer cannot acquire a ``naked'' PC and install a full
operating system license under any Microsoft volume licensing program.
Q. Does volume licensing include a full Microsoft Operating System (OS)?
ANSWER: No, Microsoft Volume licensing only licenses you for the OS upgrade
and sometimes downgrade. There are only three ways to obtain a FULL
OPERATING SYSTEM:
1. Buy the FULL-PACKAGED PRODUCT from a retail store
2. Purchase a PC with an OEM version of the operating system preinstalled,
or
3. Purchase an OEM license with additional hardware from your OEM/System
Builder.
All other licensing programs from Microsoft offer only upgrade licenses for
operating systems. If the customer does not have a full operating system
license under those upgrades, they are not fully licensed and are not
compliant.
Q. If I accept donated computers, what do they need to come with?
ANSWER: If your organization accepts donated computers; make sure that the
hardware donation includes the original operating system software. Keeping
the operating system with the PC is not just a great benefit--it's a
legal requirement
http://www.microsoft.com/giving/dpcs--old.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/pcrecycle/
Q. What if I have already received a donated machine without an operating
system and no proof of a legal operating system license?
ANSWER: You have three options
Request a proof of license from the organization that donated the machine.
Once you receive their documentation confirming legal proof of license, you
may install the operating system for which you are licensed.
Return the donated machine to its original owner and request they reinstall
the operating system. Visit www.microsoft.com/oem/to learn more about how
you can participate in Microsoft's System Builder Program.
Q. What if the donor can't find the backup CDs, End-User License Agreement,
end-user manual and the COA? Can they still donate the PC and operating
system?
ANSWER: Yes, but the donor needs to sign a letter stating they are unable
to find the original paperwork and software. Here is a sample proof of
license letter that is available to download. The organization's
information needs to be filled in and included with the donated machines.
This letter will serve as proof of license for the school or nonprofit.
Q. Can I transfer my operating system license from an old PC to a new one?
ANSWER: No. Current OEM licenses for all operating system products are not
transferable from one machine to another.
For more information:
cpitgcfs15-bsUSSALES-bs
Public-bs Anti-
Piracy-bsChannel-bsOEM-b
s LICENSINGQA.doc
Q. If I bought a new PC that has Windows 2000 Professional installed, am I
allowed to down grade to Windows NT Workstation?
ANSWER: Not under your OEM License. However some Microsoft volume license
agreements allow you to downgrade. Visit www.microsoft.com/licensing for
more information.
Q. If I bought a PC that has both Windows ME and Windows NT Workstation
installed, does that mean I'm licensed for both?
ANSWER: No. The EULA dictates what a customer can do with their software
after they receive it preinstalled on their PC. For example: The EULA for
Win 2K Pro states:
The manufacturer may have elected to provide you with a selection of
Microsoft operating system software for the COMPUTER. If the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT includes more than one (1) Microsoft operating system
(``Microsoft OS''), you are licensed to use only one of the
Microsoft OS selections provided. As part of the setup process for the
SOFTWARE you will be given
[[Page 27430]]
a one-time option to select one (1) Microsoft OS. Upon selection, the one
Microsoft OS selected by you will be set up on the COMPUTER, and the other
Microsoft OS(s) not selected by you will be automatically and permanently
deleted from the hard disk of the COMPUTER.
Other sites:
http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/pcrecycle/
http://www.microsoft.com/giving/dpcs--old.htm
http://www.microsoft.co n/business/downloads/licensing/
OS--License--requirements.doc
The bottom line is, through MS predatory licensing practices, millions and
millions of computers are rendered ``obsolete'' by Microsoft
every year. These computers are perfectly good for schools, non-profits,
and millions of people on the other side of the digital divide. Microsoft
is doing everything in their power to get rid of older computers. Their
practices virtually eliminate an aftermarket.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bruce Buckelew
Founder and Director, Oakland Technology Exchange
426 Alice, Oakland CA, 94607
MTC-00024075
From: Mathieu Gagne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Wrong
To Whom this may concern:
I wish to express my fear that the proposed settlement with Microsoft goes
against the public interest. For many decades now the process of software
development has been best understood in terms of ``task
subdivision'': take one big task, subdivide it into multiple smaller
tasks, and have each of those tasks communicate with one another through
well-defined and well-known ``interfaces''. That these interfaces
be public is critical, as it allows the greater number of programmers (like
myself) to reuse existing technology to improve products. Thus progress is
made.
Microsoft is exercising its monopolistic powers to hide a number of
previously well-known ``great interfaces'':
--the interface between the operating system and the browser (Internet
Explorer);
--the interface between the operating system and hardware drivers
(proprietary deals with particular hardware vendors);
--the interface between a document and a program that can process this
document (the proprietary nature of all of Microsoft Office document
formats);
--the interface between a web server and a web browser (proprietary
extensions to web standards like HTML); etc.
From a technological standpoint, hiding these interfaces can only be
detrimental to the public. It slows down software progress. In extreme
cases, it also opens the door for egregious and terrifying security abuses,
the existence of which is hotly debated but ultimately impossible to deny.
Paradoxically, Microsoft is one of the biggest proponents of the notion of
``open interfaces'' in the software industry, as a quick glance
at the computer section of any bookstore will reveal by the wealth of books
dedicated to COM and MFC. All these books, many of which are published by
Microsoft Press, essentially proclaim the same truth: ``open up your
interfaces, and everyone will profit: you, the public, and
Microsoft''. This is true, and good. They can only be commended for
this achievement.
However, these COM and MFC interfaces are of a much lesser realm than the
``great interfaces'' above. The latter, Microsoft has decided,
should in fact be closed and hidden in order to lock the consumer into
buying its products. That the progress of software development suffers is
immaterial to them.
The proposed settlement agreement does nothing to remedy the hiding of the
``great interfaces''. Undoubtedly, these interfaces are
documented within Microsoft proper. Breaking up Microsoft, as has been
proposed in the past, is one self-evident way of exposing the interfaces,
the most viable solution in the long term. At the very least, any
settlement with them should force the disclosure of all these interfaces.
Otherwise, Microsoft's monopoly will continue to hurt the development of
new software technology and to threaten the security and reliability of
computers everywhere.
Best,
Mathieu Gagne.
MTC-00024076
From: James E. Felton
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,ASKDOJ
Date: 1/25/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement/Computing you can rely on
A response to:
Pro: Computing you can rely on
By Craig Mundie,
Chief Technical Officer, Microsoft Corporation
http://news.com.com/2010-1078-820500.html
Mr. Mundie, this has to be one of the most hilarious things I've heard of
in my lifetime! A Microsoft executive talking about ``achieving the
goal of trustworthy computing''? That's about like Attila the Hun's
right-hand-man talking about achieving the goal of ``peace and
love''! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Craig, GET A BRAIN! You work for the world's largest CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION!
Virtually everyone on the planet knows it at this point! And those who
don't will figure it out eventually! Microsoft doesn't have a trustworthy
bone in it's (corporate) body! It is a plague on mankind!
A little history... In early 1995 I watched the story of Bill Gates on
Biography. This show had me totally convinced that Bill Gates was a bona
fide hero! I bought my first PC in February 1995. I had a degree in
electronics, but I had never used a PC. I was surprised to find that I
absolutely hated Windows 3.1! Some hero Bill Gates is! Windows 3.1 was
GARBAGE! In the following months my wife must have heard me threaten to
throw the PC in the yard at least 50 times! Well, the unfortunate fact was
that I was stuck with a $2000 PC that I HATED. In my view, ANYTHING would
be an improvement. So I was among the first to install Windows 95 upgrade,
and I was also among the first 500 to join MSN! At least with Windows 95 I
was able to accomplish basic tasks like writing a letter, or connecting to
the Internet. And as a result, over the next few months, rays of truth
about Microsoft slowly began to accumulate through my use of Prodigy and
MSN. In the course of using MSN, I became interested in sending
``multimedia files'' (photos, etc.) to friends. However,
in.trying to send ``multimedia files'' to others who did not use
MSN, Microsoft's ``proprietary fence'' became increasingly clear
to me--I'd send someone a picture and all they got was a large
download GIBBERISH! Very embarassing!
In about February 1995 I heard about Netscape's ``Gold Rush''
campaign. They claimed they could set me up with an independent ISP, a
Netscape browser, and a ``personal web space'' in ONE HOUR!
Somewhat skeptical, I signed up with Concentric Network and was surprised
to find that they did exactly what they claimed they could do. Now THAT was
trustworthy computing! Suddenly, not only could I write and publish my own
web pages using a browser with a built-in WYSIWYG editor, but I could
insert, or attach photos, sound files, and etc. in emails and people
actually received what I sent! BYE, BYE MSN!!!
The greatest thing about freedom is that it enables people to search for,
and find, TRUTH! In the 5+ years that I've been using a PC, and the
Internet, I've uncovered a great deal of truth about Microsoft. And the
TRUTH IS that Microsoft is a HUGE roadblock to ``trustworthy
computing''! Not only is Microsoft fundamentally crooked to the core,
but it's crookedness trickles down to infiltrate our entire society! NO
COMPANY can compete fairly with Microsoft. Microsoft cheats, lies and
steals, so every company that wants to survive has to mimic this behavior!
From ``creative bookkeeping'' to vaporware to deceptive product
claims (a 32-bit P750 is faster than a 128-bit custom 295 mhz processor?
NOT ACCORDING TO MY CALCULATOR!), Microsoft has set new standards of
crookedness, unmatched in the history of the world!
Mr. Mundie, I am the son of an HONEST MAN. My father was the kind of person
that would drive 10 miles to take back the 18 cents too much change the
``checker'' at the grocery store gave him. He was a Sunday school
teacher, a Boy Scout leader, a full-time father--a man whose only goal
in life was making the world a little better place. Do you have any idea of
the responsibility I bear in being the son of a man like that? Every single
day of my childhood my father taught me by example! He was never afraid of
a question. He would explain exactly WHY it's wrong to lie, cheat,
exaggerate, or etc. At the age of 5, he taught me the poem ``If''
by Rudyard Kipling!
I've heard of Microsoft personnel, possibly including yourself, referring
to Linux and the GPL as ``cancers''. Sir, if Linux and the GPL
are cancers, then the english language, as well as all other means of self
expression are also cancers! After all, the only real
[[Page 27431]]
difference between machine code and a spoken language is the percentage of
the population is that is familiar with it. Microsoft's purpose is to use
our lack of familiarity as a means to defraud us, the public, of our right
to free speech! In other words, in a sense, Microsoft is unconstitutional!
Microsoft wants to put a proprietary fence around it's collection of stolen
(code) ideas under the guise of ``intellectual property''.
I am currently in the process of writing an article called ``Hamburger
Piracy''. The purpose of the article is to convince the public that
software code is simply a recipe, much like a recipe for soup, or pie, or a
hamburger. McDonnalds, Wendy's and Burger King have a right to each sell
their version of the hamburger. But none of them can OWN the hamburger.
NEITHER can they succeed in claiming that a cookbook is a
``cancer''.
Mr. Mundie, the ability of the individual to write, speak, and publish are
inalienable rights. And the creation of a free standard ``markup
language'' known as HTML has enabled the public to participate in the
creation of a great information source known as ``the Internet''
that belongs, and provides benefits to everyone who is able to access it.
Therefore, as a matter of ``logical progression'', I submit to
you that the creation of a free standard of reading and writing computer
code will provide similar benefits.
Mr. Mundie, sir, if TRUSTWORTHY COMPUTING is the goal, then LINUX AND THE
GPL are the solution! Like our United States Constitution, Linux and the
GPL are a system OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
James E. Felton
Editor, NC News
http://www.ncns.com
MTC-00024077
From: Jim Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't care if you fine them, but you should make them open up the sources
to the Application Program Interfaces (APIs- I think is what that
translates to). I use OS/2 and Microsoft's use of insider information to
design their operating system been used to make continued development of
this operating system difficult because competing designers don't have the
information to see what it is they have changed and figure out ways to
circumvent the changes. By the time programmers can figure out what has
been changed, their programmers have ``redesigned'' the operating
system and the next release breaks. The effect of this ever-changing
scenario is to put software developers for OS/2 into an ever declining
market for their products. IBM gave up trying to compete against them, but
there are still a few companies who could benefit if Microsoft were able to
have the APIs made open source.
I'm just a user so the technical details may be off target. I hope you get
the drift.
Jim Burke
MTC-00024078
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement is weak. It would barely be considered a slap on the
wrist to Microsoft.
MTC-00024079
From: John Malish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is too soft on Microsoft. Please revise the
settlement to impose fair business tactics much more forcefully. I have
heard the stories of IT adminstrators losing job after job because
Microsoft is almost willing to give their product away to get companies to
switch from Lotus to Microsoft Exchange.
MTC-00024080
From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00024080--0001
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
Michael Junkroski, CTO
vsm.net
992 Winterberry Dr.
Marco Island, FL 34145
941.642.0304
01/29/2002 12:40
MTC-00024081
From: MT Software- Myron Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:52am
Subject'' Closing the Microsoft AntiTrust Suit
Please accept this attached letter for what it is: One letter asking that
you bring the Microsoft antitrust suit to a close and let the already
erected steps-to-justice work toward a level playing field within the IT
industry.
SOFTWARE
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a software developer I feel no great love for the Microsoft Corporation,
however, as a business owner I feel that the antitrust suit against this
corporation needs to come to an end. It is my belief that the settlement
that has been reached in this case is fair and will make strides in
leveling the playing field within the IT industry.
From what I understand...
The settlement will ensure that Microsoft does not utilize any business
tactics that may be considered either predatory or retaliatory.
The company will disclose various internal interfaces within its Windows
operating system that will be used by its competitors to design products
that will run within the system.
Microsoft has also agreed to design all future versions of Windows to be
more compatible with the products of other companies.
There will also be a three-person technical oversight committee, appointed
by the government that will monitor Microsoft and ensure that they do not
violate the tenets of settlement.
When the government begins to become involved in business we lose that
which has made this nation great: free enterprise. The suit brought against
Microsoft has been reasonably settled, continuing the litigation will not
aid this nation. Thank you for your support in this issue, and for
protecting free enterprise in this nation without stifling fair
competition.
Sincerely,
Myron Thomas
Owner
MT SOFTWARE INC.
9715 S. W. Broward Blvd. #126 Plantation, FL 33324 Local:
965-475-2004 Fax: 954-473-2785 Web-Site:
www.mtsoftware.com
E-Mail: [email protected]
Natalie Dunlap
316 Webster Street
Lewiston, ME 04240-4854
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I was pleased to learn the federal government decided to settle its
antitrust case against Microsoft. This should have been done a long time
ago. Nonetheless, I am in favor of the steps that have recently been taken
to resolve this lawsuit.
I am a very strong supporter of Microsoft. As a result of Microsoft's hard
work and innovation, we live in a world where I can communicate with loved
ones across the country with ease. I firmly believe this case was brought
as a result of the misguided idea that a successful company should be
knocked down, and its competitors should be awarded the fruits of their
labor.
Notwithstanding my belief that this case lacked merit from its inception, I
think the settlement agreement's terms are fair. The court should not
hesitate in its approval of the settlement. Microsoft has agreed to make it
easier for its competitors to compete with Windows. They agreed to document
and disclose to their competitors portions of the Windows code. They also
agreed not to retaliate against those who promote software that competes
with Windows. Nothing more should be expected or required of Microsoft
beyond the terms of the settlement agreement.
Sincerely,
Natalie Dunlap
MTC-00024082
From: Matt Shepherd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
The United States government has failed the very people it is meant to
serve in its antitrust case against Microsoft. In case there is any doubt
as to who the government is supposed to serve it is the people, not
multinational corporations.
[[Page 27432]]
Just at the time this case has seemingly come to a close Microsoft has
released its latest operating system- Windows XP. This operating system
goes further than any Microsoft software before it in pushing Microsoft's
power onto an unitting public. Tools for burning CDs, playing videos,
listening to music, etc. are all packaged in the operating system, and
beyond that it is often difficult if not impossible for users to uninstall
these add-ons should they decide they want to use a 3rd-party product. I
for instance have no idea how to uninstall Microsoft Outlook Express.
Aside from limiting consumer choice, this is a danger to the consumers.
Outlook Express, much like the Microsoft operating systems itself is a
gaping security hole that I do not want running on my computer. The FDA
tests food and pharmaceutical products to be sure they are safe to be
released to the public, and yet the public has no protection against
equally dangerous computer software. Windows XP is not only a slap in the
face of the DOJ and its antitrust case with these bundled programs, but it
is also a major security risk which puts common everyday citizens in danger
of having their identities stolen, their financial information stolen and
abused, and/or of having their computer hardware hijacked and used in
distributed denial of service attacks.
Please do not let the current ``settlement'' pass. It is nothing
more than a surrender on the part of the government and a signal to
Microsoft that they have free-reign over the computer software market.
Thank You,
Michael M Shepherd
http://www.care2.com
MTC-00024083
From: Christopher Winton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00024084
From: Thomas Strong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 25, 2002
Re: the proposed settlement consent decree
Dear Sir or Madam:
The recent ruling of the Court of Appeals in the Microsoft case upholds the
findings of the District Court on just one of the four original violations
of anti-trust law raised by the government. This narrowing of the ruling
does not even include the ``tying'' claim which was the central
argument of the government's case. It makes sense, given the Court of
Appeals ruling, for Microsoft, the DoJ and the states to reach agreement in
this case and move forward. The AG's of those states holding out for
tougher remedies have not accepted this narrowing of the legal findings.
They are in denial re: Judge Jackson's dismissal from the case, and their
expectations are therefore unrealistic.
Meanwhile, AOL has filed suit in an obvious attempt to disrupt the
resolution of the case? Why is Microsoft's inclusion of the IE browser on
the Windows desktop any different that AOL's prominent display of, and
reference to, its internet Messenger Service during CNN's news and call-in
shows? If AOL alleges that the success of Microsoft's Internet Explorer
(IE) is due to illegal monopoly maintenance, why does AOL continue to use
IE rather than Netscape Navigator with its own internet service? AOL's
contract to use IE has terminated, and it is certainly free to use its own
product. Absent any other information, I can only infer IE is a better
product.
I am hopeful the District Court will accept the settlement between
Microsoft, the DoJ and several of the states in this case. Please do not
spend any more government resources pursuing this case as it no longer
serves the interests of the nation's consumers, but instead serves AOL,
Oracle, Sun Microsystems and other Microsoft competitors, as well as the
political goals of certain state attorneys general.
Sincerely,
Thomas Strong
Sammamish, WA
MTC-00024085
From: Dan Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the settlement is a bad idea. It simply lines microsofts
pockets with future sales and doesn't really do anything to create
competition in the industry or resolve the monopoly problem.
Dan Schwartz
Bath, PA
MTC-00024086
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is a BAD idea and do not agree with it.
Darrel Hanks
MTC-00024087
From: Steinke, Kate (CBC)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
509 Lopax Road, Apt. L13
Harrisburg, PA 17112
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to take this time to give you my thoughts on the recent
settlement of the Microsoft Anti Trust case. To begin, this case has been a
burden on the technology industry and our entire economy. Consumers have
only benefited from Microsoft's innovative technologies, the only harm that
Microsoft has caused is being very successful and making our computer
industry what it is today. This settlement cannot be delayed any further;
Microsoft needs to focus on innovation, not costly legal battles.
I am a Software Engineer and I do applications development using both
Microsoft and their competitors'' products. Although they have
utilized some rather aggressive marketing strategies, I applaud Microsoft
for creating such a well-integrated system. As part of the settlement,
Microsoft will now be sharing more of their server protocols, internal
interface design and source codes. They will allow OEM's to pre-install
competing products within Windows and have promised not to retaliate
against third parties who decide to distribute both Microsoft and their
competitors'' products. Although the settlement concedes more than
Microsoft may have wanted, it is certainly more than fair and will promote
competition in the computer industry.
Please uphold this settlement and ensure that no further action is taken
against Microsoft. Our economy is in no shape to withstand any more
hardship.
Sincerely,
Katherine Steinke
MTC-00024088
From: bkbrunk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to protest the proposed settlement in the government's case
against Microsoft. Allowing the guilty party to design its own
punishment--and in particular, one which will *increase* its monopoly
over its competitors (providing the educational system with MS
software--when the schools are currently using Apple
technology)--is corrupt, weak-willed, and Just Plain Wrong. I hope the
court is *far* more punitive with Microsoft and takes charge of this case.
As of now, it appears that political concerns are driving a legal decision
and that is a disgrace.
Betsey King Brunk
Dallas, TX
[email protected]
MTC-00024089
From: Lonnie Hutchinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this email to express my concern at the proposed remedy to the
Microsoft anti-trust case. I feel that since Microsoft has been found
guilty they should be punished accordingly. The proposed settlement does
not seem propotional to the vast resources used to convict them.
Anthony Hutchinson
16 Galer St. #1
Seattle, WA 98109
MTC-00024090
From: Harrington B. Laufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello Department of Justice,
To assess the impact of the Microsoft software monopoly one only has to
look at the areas of information technology where competition still exists.
Today's cheapest off-the-shelf PC boasts hardware that ten years ago was
called a super computer, and at the price. Processor speeds and efficiency
has increased over a 100 fold. Disk capacity has increased over 50 fold.
Random access memory is pennies per megabyte rather than dollars. Hardware
capacity is now ahead of
[[Page 27433]]
the demands of all but the most extreme hobbyist. The cost of this
fantastic hardware is affordable by almost anyone.
Can we say the same for software? A resounding ?No!?. In fact many in the
IT field note that software has degraded under the Microsoft monopoly.
?Bloat ware? is common as the advances in hardware compensate for poor
programming and software design. Office productivity software is stagnant,
buggy, and unreliable. Questionable ?ease of use? features are the only
changes with new versions. The price of these functionally stale packages
is flat or rising. The only pockets of software innovation are in the Open
Source development, the Linux operating system, rogue applications like
Napster and Gnutella, and the edgier side of gaming.
In spite of the disingenuous proclamations otherwise, Microsoft's monopoly
has set software development back 20 years. For another eye opener, try to
calculate the lost productivity caused by the exploitations of Microsoft's
software security flaws. Fundamentally poor design decisions, sloppy
programming, and a rush-to-market philosophy, have put everyone who uses a
Microsoft equipped PC at risk of loosing dozens of hours of work simply by
reading their e-mail. This level of inferior product would not be tolerated
in any other consumer area.
Regards,
Harry
Harry B. Laufman Manager, Computer Operations
OSU College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences
101 Vivian Hall 614-292-6554
2121 Fyffe Rd. [email protected]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1097
MTC-00024091
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:55am
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,
Jo Roberts
33222 Coe Lane
Magnolia, TX 77354
MTC-00024092
From: James E. McGrath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
Sir/Madame.... Microsoft has standardized the industry and brought
stability to an emerging sector. However the pendulum has swung too far.
Analogizing Standard Oil 100 years ago is appropriate. Too much power is
centralized with MS and the company is no longer nimble. MS can use it's
market dominance to hinder or deny competition. It is a pattern often
repeated. This same mass has begun to create products which have huge
amounts of code but aren't nimble either. In my opinion MS products expect
customer conformance rather than vice versa.
I'd like to MS split into five or more parts. Each with the same beginning
point, that is, the core codes. These new companies would be extremely
competitive. Their products would be compatible in order to saleable. This
would be much more effective than a muddled and complex govermental
regulation. Gate's worth would increase like Rockefeller's after the
breakup. Seems like a win/win for all.
Thank you...
Jim McGrath,
Laramie, Wyoming
MTC-00024093
From: Carl Monroe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58am
Subject: BREAK-UP MICROSOFT & Fine them $10 Billion
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Trial Attorney,
Microsoft is the STANDARD OIL TRUST of the 21st Century! Microsoft is NOT a
technology leader. They follow & copy others technological
developments. Their products are of poor to mediocre quality at high prices
considering their value. The only thing they have going for them is that in
essence they have Monopoly Market Domination with 95% of the market in
computer operating systems. Were that not so we would all be paying much
less for computer software of much better capability, reliablity, quality
and technological advances.
You will probably receive many email comments from a supposedly non-profit
organization ``Americans for Technology Leadership''
(www.techleadership.org) which is sureptitiously sponsored by Microsoft.
I'm sending my comments by separate email to you as I suspect that were I
to submit these comments thru them the message would be deleted.
Microsoft is the STANDARD OIL TRUST of the 21st Century! MICROSOFT should
be fined $10 BILLION and BROKEN-UP into about half a dozen smaller
companies.
Best of luck to you in your suit against Microsoft!
Carl Monroe
PO Box 6221
Chandler, AZ 85246
MTC-00024094
From: Richard Stuhan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:00am
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 very disturbed at the proposed antitrust settlement as it
has been proposed. First, it is my belief that the proposed settlement will
do very little to correct the anti-competitive behaviour of Microsoft. The
proposed damages rememdy that would provide free software to schools is a
very dangerous idea. This would give Microsoft the chance to improve their
corporate image (Why would that be part of a corrective measure?) and
unfairly give them greater access to one of the few markets in which they
do not currently dominate. The result of this unfortunate oversight will be
to enable Microsoft to directly attack Apple Computer in an one area where
they (Apple Computer) are strong and competitive. Clearly, the proposed
settlement puts Apple Computer at a dissadvantage, how will they compete
with free software?
Their are many other problems I find in the proposed settlement but I will
not address them all here. Let me finish by saying that I agree with the
observations made by Dan Kegel on his website:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Thank you,
Richard Stuhan
12716 W. Voltaire Ave
El Mirage, AZ 85335
MTC-00024095
From: Gary Moffatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Have you read the man's book? To say Mr. Gates ambition is Hitlerian is
faint praise. If you think monopoly is a crime, take steps that oppose the
consolidation of power. Payment of fines in Microsoft products is
rediculous. Listen to the people who have something at stake besides the
status quo. It seems to me the goal of any action should be to lay the
groundwork for individuals to defend themselves against the monster, not to
close the books on a bit of stickey business. How can you even consider
this act of non-contrition that Microsoft proposes? The whole world is
watching. Sincerely
MTC-00024096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the current
proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have
ceased to exist over the
[[Page 27434]]
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.
Sincerely,
Andrew S Bartholomew
33 Garfield St Apt A
Cambridge, MA 02138
MTC-00024097
From: Jeremy Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsofts historic action against competitors and refusal to act to the
intent of the 1995 Consent Decree shows that this company will act strongly
against any attempts to regulate the way it does business. I think that the
proposed settlement is a bad idea.
I disagree with the way the proposed rememdy treats non-commercial
conserns. The proposed remedy exclude information sharing with companies or
entities that are not in business to make money. Some of these non-profit
entities include such well used projects as: Apache Web Server, Linux
Operating Systems and the Java Programming language. These are only a few
of competitors which Microsoft will be able to strangle by with-holding
information.
I would like to see a remedy that would force Microsoft to allow anyone to
freely download the APIs and specification that allow any outside program
to iter-operate with any Microsoft program (including Windows, Media Player
and the Office products). The penalties should be stiff and well documented
if Microsoft attempts circumvent these remedies.
I am encouraged by the Technical Committee that will observe Microsoft's
business practices and encourage Microsoft to abide by the indent of the
remedy. This board will force Microsoft to ``play fair'' by
making sure that Microsoft does no pollute open standards by adding their
own extensions. But I believe that the board should be established for more
that its current proposed 5 years; I see 50 years as a better length.
I would like to see Microsoft allow any non-Microsoft software to be
distributed on its install CDs or DVDs. I can see a company petition the
outside board of expert to be included on the install CD as a way to
encourage competition and allow for the greatest choice the the consumer.
An unbundled version of Windows (at a cheaper price) as recommended by the
dissenting nine Attorney Generals is good start, but resellers should be
able to bundle what-ever they think their customer would want to use.
Choice to the consumer is what this is all about; expediency should not
out-weigh freedom of choice.
MTC-00024098
From: Joe and Alice Weintraut
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The following excerpt Sums up, my and many of my peers views on the
proposed Microsoft settlement.. a settlement which is completely inadequate
in stopping Microsoft from continuing ``As usual.'' regarding
fair business practices. Other companies and organizations (including
``not for profit organizations,) absolutely MUST be allowed to develop
Computer operating systems that can efficiently run Microsoft software, and
make calls to Microsoft developed sub-systems. Without a ruling to this
effect, Microsoft will come out of this litigation as the winners, with the
American, and world public as the clear losers.
Joe Weintraut
3422 Crocus CT.
Westfield IN, 46074
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 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.
The preceding is an Excerpt from ``He's Not in It for the
Profit''
By Robert X. Cringely
MTC-00024099
From: Dan Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom-it-may-concern:
The proposed Microsoft settlement should ALLOW for other companies to
FAIRLY have access to the same markets. Microsoft has money and clout, but
their products are highly integrated together forcing other companies out
of the picture. The American way says free enterprise allows competition
and innovation. If Microsoft is allowed to undercut other companies with
less money and clout and a possible lower quality product, is that a fair
settlement? ....I don't think so. People are starting to notice Microsoft's
security failures now in a larger way. Do we want them to control our data
without full accountability? Accountablity helps when other companies can
be used as leverage to force compliance.
Thank you!!
Dan Davis
[email protected]
Ohio State University
Physical Facilities
2003 Millikin Rd
Columbus, OH 43210
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024100
From: Sean E. Millichamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a concerned citizen of the United States of America. I have worked in
the technology field for over 10 years and have a B.S.E. in Computer
Engineering from the
[[Page 27435]]
University of Michigan. I work daily with both Microsoft environments and
non-Microsoft environments and would like to add my comments regarding the
settlement to the Tunney Act comment process.
I have observed Microsoft engage in (at best) questionable business
practices over the years and it came as no surprise to me that 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.
From my extensive experience in the technology field it is clear that there
is one primary underlying issue that needs to be addressed in order to
provide the opportunity for other companies and software to be able to
compete with Microsoft's offerings on a level playing field. This issue is
interoperability between different software packages and the operating
system itself. In the language of technology it is addressed in three ways:
1) Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) An API is the method by which
one software module (or program) calls functions (or services) in another
module (including functions provided by the operating system itself). If
Microsoft was required to make accurate documentation for the full API in
all versions of the Windows operating systems it would be possible to
create replacements that would, if Microsoft's documentation were full and
accurate to the way the API functions in Windows, allow any program written
to run on Windows to run on any program that duplicates the published
Windows API. There is one such project currently underway for Linux (http:/
/www.winehq.com) but their progress has been hampered by incomplete,
inaccurate, and often missing documentation about how the Windows API
functions. Also, for this to be a truly effective and universal remedy the
documentation must be accessible to all of those who wish to reference it
without agreeing to any sort of a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Such
restrictions would make it impossible for Open Source software projects to
benefit from the availability of such materials.
2) Document Formats Microsoft not only has control via the Windows
Operating System, but also via it's dominance in office productivity
applications with it's Microsoft Office product.
Businesses and individuals have been forced into a situation where they
often have no choice but to use Office because they need to exchange
documents that have been created by others in a proprietary format only
supported in Office. Microsoft has deliberately failed to document the
format that the information is structured in within these document files.
This has prevented other office suite competitors from creating mechanisms
by which they could reliably read and write these files to promote document
interchange.
Furthermore, this undocumented file format effectively locks up billions of
dollars worth of documents of the businesses and people of the United
States of America wholly under Microsoft's control. Real time and money has
been invested in the creation of those documents and without the file
format it is impossible to have access to your own data without using the
proper Microsoft tool. This gives one company an uncomfortably high degree
of control over the rest of the computer users in the country. If you
decide you don't want to use Microsoft's products anymore you can not
effectively extract your own data from their proprietary formatted files.
3) Network Protocols
A Network Protocol defines how one computer program can interact with
another computer program over a network. TCP/IP (the protocol that the
Internet uses) is an open and published standard where all of the
communication mechanisms and features can be read in reference documents
for any and all to implement. This is the primary reason that Internet
accessibility is a feature of virtually all computer platforms regardless
of their vendor, operating system, or end-user functionality.
Microsoft has a number of protocols that they use on the network. One such
protocol is CIFS (formerly SMB) which allows Microsoft computers to share
files and printers. Microsoft has documented some (but not all) of the
protocol it uses to do this communication and much of what is documented
does not match what their implementation in Windows actually does.
The omission of even a small part of the protocol can effectively make it
impossible to implement a functioning version of any of it. This has been
demonstrated most recently and effectively by Microsoft's design and
implementation of their Active Directory services in Windows 2000. In order
to be able to claim that they are using open and published standards
Microsoft built their Active Directory services (which provides, among
other things, workstation logins to a server) around two well established
protocols: the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and the
Kerberos protocol. Microsoft followed all of the standards except made one
proprietary modification to Kerberos in the ``Privilege Attribute
Certificate'' (PAC) which they have only documented under a non-
disclosure agreement in such a way as to prevent any competition from
legally using the documentation to create a compatible non-Microsoft
replacement. Without the knowledge of how this field is used, it is
impossible to re-implement the functionality that a non-Microsoft server
can server Microsoft Windows clients or so that non-Microsoft clients can
access all the functionality of a Microsoft Windows server. One such
project that has been hurt by this ``embracing and extending'' of
open standards and then Microsoft's subsequent refusal to document their
changes has been the Samba team (http://www.samba.org) which has created
software that attempts to re-implements the functionality of Microsoft file
and print servers for Unix-based operating systems. This would give users a
choice of which servers they can use to provide file and print services to
Microsoft Windows workstations.
Summary: The core problem is that Microsoft, in their position as a
monopoly, have repeatedly failed to freely provide sufficient and
comprehensive documentation that allow programs to communicate with the
operating system, programs to communicate with each-other, and people to
exchange and access their own data freely. The remedy would be to require
Microsoft to freely provide complete and accurate documentation on all of
their APIs, network protocols, and file formats used in their applications.
This would, if executed properly, allow others to create software that
could interact with and/or replace equivalent Microsoft offerings thus
giving the consumer the ability to chose the best software for the job and
not just the only software that will let them fully and effectively
interact with other computer users. It is my opinion that any settlement
and remedy that does not include these provisions will be wholly
ineffective at providing a real solution.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sean E. Millichamp
1920 Spruce Lane
Ypsilanti, MI 48198-9492
--
Sean E. Millichamp, Director of Technical Services
Ingematics--A Division of Compu-Aid, Inc.
MTC-00024101
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft, in
regard to the anti-trust trial, is both fair and just. It serves to keep
Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive business practices going
forward, which is all that can really be done to ensure competition in the
future.
Thank you for your consideration,
Donald Smutny
MTC-00024102
From: John Plunkett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has a monopoly. Just like AT&T in the 80's, they need to be
disbanded. Settlement is not an option.
John Plunkett
Operations Support
Virginia Transformer
540-345-9892 ext 173
MTC-00024103
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:04am
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
[[Page 27436]]
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,
Sharon Kostenbauder
3511 Dartmouth Avenue
Tampa, FL 33603
MTC-00024104
From: Dianne Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I would like to urge you to consider remedies against Microsoft that will
permit freedom of choice for me and my children in the future. I am
concerned that Microsoft has become so powerful that they are imposing
monopolistic methods on the public that adversely affect me and my
descendants. I feel that freedom of choice is one of our greatest freedoms.
I look to you to assure those freedoms.
Thank you,
Dianne Rowley
PO Box 25292
Miami, Fl 33102
MTC-00024105
From: Michael Capozzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think they settlement is a bad idea. IT gives microsoft too much.
Capozzi, Michael E
[email protected]
MTC-00024106
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:15am
Subject: Proposed Final Judgment
Dear Judge,
I am an attorney in Charlottesville, VA. I am concerned that the Proposed
Final Judgment with Microsoft (hereinafter ``MS'') that you are
currently reviewing does not go far enough to ensure that MS will not
continue to unfairly hurt its competitors. First, it does not end
Microsoft's monopoly over the operating system market. Second, it does not
sufficiently punish MS for its anticompetitive behavior that was found by
the Judge during the trial. Third, the Proposed Final Judgment includes
enforcement mechanisms that will prove to be ineffective in protecting
smaller software companies from monopolistic activity. Since, MS's
operating system is a monopoly and is one of the engines upon which our
economy heavily relies, I suggest that MS be regulated like a utility.
Thank you for carefully considering my opinions.
Sincerely,
Marshall M. Slayton
Reback & Slayton
PO Box 20
710 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
MTC-00024107
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:14am
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 Wilmoth 1872 Bay Oaks Circle Milton, FL 32583
MTC-00024108
From: James Karpinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment on the proposed MS anti-trust settlement. From my
understanding of the proposed settlement it does not go far enough to allow
competition. The PC BOOTLOADER NEEDS TO BE OPEN to other non-MS operating
systems installed by the OEMs, without any penalty from MS. I also think
that if MS wants to control everyone's software, then MS SHOULDN'T BE IN
THE ON-LINE AND HARDWARE/GAMING SYSTEMS BUSINESSES also. They should spin-
off or sell their interests in Microsoft Network, XBox and other hardware
products like keyboard and mice. MS strangling their competition is great
for MS shareholders, but it doesn't help the average PC user who has
Windows crash on them everyday.
Jim Karpinski
MTC-00024109
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17am
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,
Nicole Vogle
5404 Coach Rd.
Bossier City, LA 71111
MTC-00024110
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I believe the settlement does not go far enough to limit
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft has, in the past, inserted
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running
on competing operating systems. The Proposed Final Judgment, as written,
fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities historically used by
Microsoft. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Karen Pachla
36980 Munger
Livonia, Michigan, 48154
MTC-00024111
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment on the proposed final judgement in the case U.S.
vs. Microsoft. I do not feel that the proposal is in the public interest in
the following points:
The definitions of various terms made in the proposal restrict the
application of the judgement to prevent unfair practices resulting from a
monopilization of the position of the windows operating system in computer
systems using Intel-based processor chips:
Definition A
The term ``API'' is generally used to mean interfaces between
application programs and the operating system, however in the proposed
judgement this term is restricted to mean the interfaces between Microsoft
Middleware and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other
application programs (definition A). This has the unfortunate consequence
that important APIs such as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by
installer programs to install software on Windows are ommitted. The API
definition should be alterred to include these APIs so as not to put other
software providers at a disadvantage since correctly functioning installer
programs are a prerequisite for using such software in the Windows
environment.
Definition J
The term ``middleware'' is generally used 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. In the
proposed judgement, Definition J defines middleware in a much more
restrictive way,
[[Page 27437]]
and allows Microsoft to exclude any software from being covered by the
definition in two ways:
1. By changing product version numbers so that updated versions of a
product would nolonger be considered Microsoft middleware.
2. By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its middleware, for
example by introducing new version of Windows through the Update service so
that this new version was not considered ``Microsoft
middleware''.
Definition J should be modified to prevent such loopholes.
The proposed judgement does not adequately protect developers of
alternatives to Windows which can run programs that are windows compatible:
The judgement should be modified to forbid retaliation against developers
of such alternative operating systems.
It should also be modified to force microsoft to modify windows to allow
the use of non-microsoft middleware.
The judgement should ensure that microsoft does not raise artificial
barriers to prevent non-microsoft operating systems from using APIs needed
to run applications written for windows.
The judgement should be modified to force Microsoft to modify their
liscencing agreements so that users do not violate their liscencing
agreements when using windows applications on windows-compatible competing
operating systems.
Due to these points I conclude that the proposed final judgement allows
anticompetitive practices to continue and allows Microsoft to create
artificial barriers to the developement of alternatives to the Microsoft
windows operating system. As such the proposed final judgement is not in
the public interest and should not be adopted without modifications to
address these issues.
Thank you for considering my opinion in the course of deciding how to
proceed with the final judgement in the case U.S. vs Microsoft
sincerely,
Fred F. Damberger, Ph.D.
U.S. citizin living abroad
Institute for Molecular Biology and Biophysics
ETH-Hoenggerberg HPK H2/ Zurich, Switzerland
MTC-00024112
From: H. Bieber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft proposed settlement is a BAD idea.
Harold Bieber
MTC-00024113
From: John Muccigrosso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am disappointed with the way the Microsoft case seems to be ending up.
The proposed final judgement is lacking in a number of areas, bu I am
particularly concerned that the PFJ appears to allow Microsoft to continue
a number of its anti-competitive activities. I hope that this judgement
will not be accepted and that a stronger, more effective one be created.
John Muccigrosso
[http://www.quondamtech.com/]
Quondam Technology & Education
Voice (201) 874-9153
[email protected]
FAX (801) 751-6811
MTC-00024114
From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment solicitations on
the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
I am concerned that the provision for requiring Microsoft to provide
information only to commercial middleware vendors of Microsoft's choice
would allow Microsoft to work to break open source middleware projects such
as Samba.
Even if this issue was resolved, the provisions of the settlement are
almost irrelevant because of the lack of means provided for effective
enforcement of any violations of the settlement by Microsoft.
Respectfully yours,
George Perry
32905 NE Chamberlain Road
Corbett, Oregon 97019
MTC-00024115
From: William D. Stockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea!
William (Bill) D. Stockwell
133 S.E. Fenway Avenue
Bartlesville, OK 74006-2706
(918) 335-2673
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00024116
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement PLEASE READ
The only thing the Microsoft's competitors really need to level the playing
field is to have access to Microsoft's file formats, free of charge or at
most nominal, for the Office range of products. Without access to these
they will never have the ability to compete in the corporate world. IT
departments simply cannot ostracize themselves by picking an alternate OS
then not having compatibility with their computers via email and document
exchanges. How frustrating is it for you when someone sends you a file via
email that you cannot open, now imagine that times a 1000 or 10,000 how
long would you keep your customer base. There are great products out there
that major corporations simply cannot afford to use them do to the amount
of work involved in getting them to be useable outside of the company by
their customers and business contacts or partners. Just take Microsoft's
ability to lock customers in just because that's what every body else uses.
Andre' Smith
LMSI Solutions Center
1981 Snyder Richland Wa 99352
(509) 373-4207
MTC-00024117
From: Richard Horsman (Merch)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:25am
Subject: Public comment
As an American citizen, I am not in favor of the current proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I would like to see a stricter
penalty, including opening of certain file formats (.doc, etc.) to the
software industry at large. Thank you.
Richard Horsman
Belleville, Michigan
MTC-00024118
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:24am
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,
phil moon
4374 rock creek rd
pueblo, CO 81005
MTC-00024119
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:27am
Subject: Comment
Dear Sirs;
I find the settlement between the DoJ and Microsoft to be astonishingly
lenient. In my opinion, it amounts to a very light ``slap on the
wrist'' for Microsoft, and should have been far harsher than it was.
As a heavy user of computers and software, I have observed over the years
as Microsoft repeatedly mimicked, if not stole, ideas from some of the best
hardware and software companies, then used its power to sometimes force the
public to use its lesser copies. While it wasn't always force, Microsoft
did make it very difficult for people like me to continue using the better
quality materials.
This is the simple face of the case, and all the millions of dollars spent
on dancing around the issue are a complete waste of taxpayer money in light
of the fact that virtually nothing will be done about this unethical
practice.
Regards,
[[Page 27438]]
MJ Ainsley
Salinas, CA
MTC-00024120
From: Randy Tidd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a professional software engineer that has been writing software for
both Windows and non-Windows platforms since 1986. The proposed settlement
against Microsoft is woefully insufficient to stop or reverse the damage
they are doing and have done to the computing field. It is impossible for
any innovations in the desktop PC software industry to survive and
Microsoft has a technical, financial, and creative stranglehold on the
industry.
The American capitalist system is founded on the ideas of free trade and
free competition and there are laws in place to maintain such a
marketplace. Microsoft has been in violation of these laws for years and
the way they do business must change if our wildly successful capitalist
principles are to apply to the desktop software and related industries.
Thank you,
Randy Tidd
[email protected]
MTC-00024121
From: Scott Schweinsburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (positive)
Good morning,
I am a computer professional who works closely with Microsoft products
every day. Microsoft makes excellent products and innovations that people
want. I want to voice my support of the proposed judgement on Microsoft. If
anything I would say that this is too stiff of a punishment for a company
that is a world leader in quality and design of software.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Schweinsburg
Network Engineer
MTC-00024122
From: Gahlord Dewald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft to be granted easier monopoly in schools
I want to state that the idea of Microsoft giving their product for free to
educational institutions seems out of line. This act would further
discourage competition for educational products as any Microsoft competitor
would be charging for product. Please reconsider the decision to increase
the leverage Microsoft has in the educational market. Perhaps they could
set up a trust fund equal to the financial value of their proposed
donation, the_funds_of which would be disbursed to
educational institutions.
Thank you for your consideration.
J. Gahlord Dewald
Gahlord Dewald
v: 802.658.4267
http://www.thtfct.com
THTFCT
Creative: Interactive, Motion, Print
416 Pine Street
f: 800.863.9606
Burlington, VT 05401
e: [email protected]
USA
MTC-00024123
From: Christopher Weberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement decision is bad.
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.
Christopher Weberg
2443 Woodside Way
Atlanta, GA 30348-5150
MTC-00024124
From: Arenaro, Richard
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The proposed compromise solution of Microsoft being allowed to
``donate'' it's anti-competitive practice/products to schools is
absolutely disgraceful. However, for an American citizen to expect justice
to be served where there is enormous amounts of cash (and political egos)
at stake is wishful thinking, at best. It absolutely boggles the mind that
the Justice Department can even consider such a proposal. But then again,
I'm just an average citizen, not a legal expert......thank God.
Richard Arenaro
MTC-00024125
From: D. C. Sessions
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:28am
Subject: Tunney Act comments on the proposed Final Judgment
D. C. Sessions
14215 N. 43rd Way
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-867-4694
For reasons that have been extensively covered in the Press and by other
comments to the Court, I believe that the proposed Final Judgment is at
best ineffective and at worst an explicit invitation to Microsoft to
continue the abuse of monopoly that originally led to this case. As the
Court has undoubtedly been bombarded with these observations, I will
confine my comments to a point which to my knowledge has --not--
been brought up elsewhere.
Under the definition in (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.
The definition in (VI)(K) (not quoted for brevity) also depends on the
definition of ``Windows Operating System Product,'' and by
(VI)(L): ``Microsoft Platform Software'' means (i) a Windows
Operating System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product. Others
have pointed out the danger of allowing Microsoft sole discretion to
replace other firms'' products as part of its ``Platform
Software,'' effectively judicially-endorsed predatory pricing. My
concern, though, is with the possibility that Microsoft will *remove*
features from their definition.
For instance, there are a large number of utilities currently included with
Windows that are used to set it up, configure it, and so forth. These
utilities depend on intimate knowledge of the Microsoft design and cannot
be readily duplicated, yet without them the system is utterly useless. For
a number of reasons (including their dependence on undocumented features)
they cannot be readily obtained from any other source. Microsoft could
remove them in perfect compliance with the proposed Final Judgment.
If something like this did occur, Microsoft's customers (e.g. the computer
OEMs) would have no choice but to acquire them from Microsoft under
whatever terms Microsoft chose. Being outside of the scope of the proposed
Final Judgment, there would be no constraints on those terms, however
abusive. In effect, the entire proposed Final Judgment would be a dead
letter since all of its terms depend in the end on the above definitions.
In sum, the proposed Final Judgment is not just flawed in detail, but
contains a loophole which allows Microsoft to escape from all restraints.
In the case of an abusive monopolist with Microsoft's record, this is
patently not in the public interest.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of January 2002,
D. C. Sessions
[[Page 27439]]
MTC-00024126
From: Mike Bartkowiak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: January 25 2002
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a U.S. Citizen and Computer Professional, I wish to comment on proposed
Microsoft settlement in accordance with the Tunney Act. It is my opinion
that the current agreement does not provide adequate protection for the
American consumer. The language and remedies provided are not written to
prevent Microsoft from continuing it's current pattern of illegal
anticompetitive practices. Much of the technical restrictions are written
in such a way as to easily be circumvented on legal terms. As and example,
I did not find any direct reference to the newest or future Microsoft
operating system products. There are many more glaring issues that I would
be glad to provide further input on if it is so desired. The bottom line is
that this document is not an acceptable solution for the American consumer.
Thank You.
Michael Joseph Bartkowiak
4035 Bentley Lake Rd
Howell, MI 48843
[email protected]
MTC-00024127
From: Prigot, Forde
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A vote against the settlement
After reading over material provided by the government and analysis by
independent parties I can only come to the conclusion that the proposed
settlement will not solve the problem at hand. I strongly suggest that the
settlement not be adopted and that the government should find a better
solution possibly something similar to the IBM anti-trust decision.
Forde Prigot
System Analyst
MTC-00024128
From: shane watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No to Microsoft
MTC-00024129
From: Crosby, Thomas A
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft case
Microsoft needs to be taught that the American public will not tolerate...
1. $100 updates to a program that didn't work in the first place(crashes)
that we have no choice but to buy(see #2)
2. forcing all PC users to upgrade every couple of years because they keep
releasing ``improved'' software and their ``partners''
will no longer support the older software due to their market domination.
3. New features that collect data on the user's habits, hardware and
preferences and then upload, secretly to Microsoft's websites everytime you
log on the net.
4. New ``features'' that make competing software not work as well
as Microsoft's offering. Like we have a CHOICE in operating system
software! This removes the choice of other software.
5. Network software that forces corporate customers to be using Microsoft
products....We were very happy with Lotus Notes--thank you.....now we
have MS Outlook.
They are too big and have too much market share. They can dictate the
market and the choices their customers can make, both directly and
indirectly.
Tom Crosby
Delphi Thermal
200 Upper Mountain Road
Lockport, NY 14094
MTC-00024130
From: Sarah Leitner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:35am
Subject: Micrfosoft Settlement
I think this is DEFINETLY a bad idea. Sarah Leitner
MTC-00024131
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:36am
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Case
Gentlemen and Ladies:
The proposed settlement in this case should be approved. It is my feeling
this case was ill conceived at the outset. The cost to various parties has
been high in more ways than one. I am fully in favor of ending the
litigation.
Thank you for your considerations in this matter.
D. Pillsbury
Richmond, VA
MTC-00024132
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:34am
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,
buddy loanzon
box 251298
west los angeles, CA 90025
MTC-00024133
From: Philip J. Koenig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a computer user since the 1980's, a user of Microsoft products since
DOS 3.1, an online computer user for 14 years, and currently have my own
computer industry consulting business.
I am writing today to express my strong dissatisfaction with the currently
proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust matter.
I have watched Microsoft's behavior for many years, and I feel the current
proposals are not adequate to ensure further abuses of Microsoft's dominant
position in desktop operating systems, internet browsers, office
productivity applications, server operating systems, and a variety of other
key consumer and commercial computing products.
Microsoft today has in excess of $30 billion in cash in the bank, and I
think the DOJ has to think carefully about the real impact of small one-
time fines and/or minor conduct remedies that Microsoft will either easily
find ways to circumvent, or turn into a public relations disaster for the
US govt.
Microsoft likes to argue that to place any limits on them ``stifles
innovation'', but as those of us who have been in the industry for
many years can attest, Microsoft is hardly known as a technology innovator.
Yet the impact of their monumental dominance of every market they enter
into has a tremendous negative impact on the total innovation of the
industry as a whole, due to the chilling effect it has on potential
competitors who see little reason to enter a market against the Microsoft
``800 lb gorilla'', with all the massive resources they can bring
to bear in any market they choose to enter. (The latest being telephones
and home game consoles)
For this reason, Microsoft themselves actually chill overall industry
innovation, and while in some ways the US govt may look upon Microsoft as a
corporate success story and valuable strategic asset, the computer and
technology industry as a whole suffers. I urge the DOJ to take into
consideration the position of the 9 holdout states which have chosen not to
enter into the currently proposed settlement, I believe their position is
principled and based on sound evidence and the needs of the industry and
consumers both.
I have actually advocated for some time that the best remedy for
Microsoft's illegal conduct is to separate the company into separate,
autonomous divisions. While I realize at this juncture that this option may
be precluded by decision(s) rendered by the appellate court, I nonetheless
still firmly believe that the only way to ensure Microsoft does not
continue to leverage various subtle technological and corporate advantages
associated with their monolithic ``vertically integrated''
company is to separate the company into 3 divisions. This would have the
added benefit of relieving the US government of becoming a constant target
of criticism for the manner in which its agents
[[Page 27440]]
oversee day-to-day corporate operations at Microsoft for years to come,
which seems to be what they are facing with the current proposal.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Philip J. Koenig
915 Cole St. #152
San Francisco, CA 94117
MTC-00024134
From: Lauren Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not think it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's
offenses, namely their anti-competitive practices, nor sufficient incentive
to prevent them from continuing this behavior in the future. Furthermore,
the idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring them to extend their monopoly
into the US educational system is incomprehensible.
Respectfully,
Lauren Elliott
San Diego, CA
MTC-00024135
From: Toycop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:38am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Unfair for the consumer.
If a car or childs toy has a minor defect allowing safety problems, in
time, such will be recalled. (we bought such a toy this past Christmas, yet
the mfgr has no desire to replace it for the child, they are just
interested in getting it for review at any cost including child's loss of
use since out of stock, Santa's identity revealed, child crying over
replacement with other item). Perhaps a few will die before the red tape is
unravled, but it will get unravled.
Why not the same treatment for microsoft? In their case, millions of people
have been harmed, yet it continues. Appears to be much more than a minor
defect.
Further, they must be forced to continue to support windows 98 and secure
it up. Failure to do so could result in major problems for America while
millions continue to use windows 98 as their operating system and will
continue to do so for a long time.
We all know the high courts opinion, during the presidental who won lawsuit
they basicaly said Americans need to vote for persons who will put
knowledgeable, nongready, nonbiased judges into power. Seems money is the
root of robe evil rather than robes ruling without bias.
Big corporations in America seem to have found their niche, create a
product, rush it to market and let the public test it for them. Deny
problems, deny death relation to defect until the press finds the financial
ties with the court. Such marketing methods are erroding consumer
confidence as seen in the large tax reliefs for corporations who need such
as Americans slowly boycott their products after being stung on other
products and inability to get an item fixed when it breaksdown after a
short allowed return time.
Allowances from the courts are erroding confidence. If the court system was
really doing it's job, they'd have known our airports were unsecure (the
common American knew that) and made a ruling of adjustment before anything
went wrong. Such and others streches from sea to shinning sea.
Look at walmart, it's common knowledge that they will deny a consumer's
injury was due to their policy or state of store. They have the financial
backing and the power of the police to assist them. Meanwhile, the common
American watches as those who have marked on their work car, ``To
serve and protect'', the officer drive around the dead animal laying
in the middle of the road. Meanwhile the next citizen to swerve to avoid
gets pulled over and ticketed for weaving or crossing the center line and
then pays a fee to the court when the judge rules in favor of the state.
Whatever happened to serve the public vs serve only big corporations since
they must hire lawyer and private detective to prove case while
corporations can use the Police network?
Few years ago, a judge I had to go in front of a few months prior for a
speeding ticket would not listen to my excuse that I had to increase speed
due to the activity of the motorist I was attempting to pass prior to the
two officers stationed on each side of the road at the crossover road. When
the judge was found to be taking kickbacks from his rulings and disrobed,
why wasn't I refunded my fine payment? He was corrupt, and using the badged
gun carriers to pad his wallet and city coffers at my expense rather than
face the problem which would have been to consuming for the court system to
get at the root of the evils.
Sure, the judge listened to me and stated I sounded honest but he had his
bias opinion decided in advance. I could see it in his body language while
he reached with his gavel multiple times. At least the court system finally
had the sense to rule against Carmel Indiana and require them to videotape
all traffic stops after many blacks and other minorities were hassled, it
took the pull over of a black state trooper to get it done tho Carmel
officer insists he was correct. Should have seen his body language as he
walked up to the old car and the complete change over when he spotted the
black officers uniform, I did.
That's one lying Carmel officer, I saw the entire event. When the blackman
went thru the light, it was green contrary to the white officers claim. He
was distracted by the expensive new cars running the red light on the
crossroad making it appear the black officer ran it instead.
MTC-00024136
From: George Bevis Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The purpose of the antitrust case against Microsoft is to increase
competition. There can be no competition without defined published
interfaces, because users get locked into a particular combination of
software and operating system. It is therefore critical that the interfaces
between Microsofts products, the APIs, be published so that others can
build software that competes with different portions of the Microsoft
monopoly.
Any resolution that ignores this is not a solution, no mater how much it
punishes Microsoft, or what they give away to schools.
George Bevis
MTC-00024137
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:35am
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,
Kent Bullard
#6 Terrace Drive
Helena, AR 72342
MTC-00024138
From: Kevin Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
My views:
The two parties (Microsoft and the US Government) are playing two different
games. Microsoft's definition of success is ``business growth''.
The Government's definition of success is ``fair marketplace''.
Because there are different goals, there will always be conflict. But
overriding this entire dispute is the principle that the good of the whole
(the Government) should take precedence over the good of the individual
(Microsoft, in this instance).
Microsoft has the willingness to succeed and the ability. That
``ability'' can be via producing excellent products (which they
do) or, given their decided monopoly power, by strong-arming business
members within the industry (which they also do). It is this second
``ability'' which the Government needs to focus on addressing.
The Government has both the willingness and the ability to succeed (i.e.,
achieve a fair marketplace). To do so, the Government must focus on
developing (1) sanctions to prevent future anti-competitive behavior from
Microsoft and (2) penalties for Microsoft's past behavior.
IMPORTANT: (2) above (i.e., penalties) MUST be sufficient as to act as a
deterrent for (1) above (i.e., to prevent future anti-competitive
behavior).
NET: In my view, the Government has substantially weakened its position by
agreeing to ``penalties'' which even the courts
[[Page 27441]]
believe are not sufficient (let alone the injured participants). And 9
states also don't buy the proposed ``agreement''. (That school
proposal from Microsoft was a JOKE!!!! Steve Jobs was absolutely right in
his views.) What to do: The Government needs to rethink its position and do
a MUCH better job developing MUCH more severe penalties. The
``sanctions'' are fine (though they will require monitoring and
enforcement resources). But the ``penalties'' is where future
anti-competitive behavior can really be prevented. The answer clearly lies
between a company breakup and the weak penalties ``agreed to''.
My advice to the Government is: Be significantly more aggressive and let
the courts sort out the disagreements. The Government has taken it all this
far...the Government needs to keep the pressure on until the end for the
good of the whole.
Kevin Price
Fairfield, CT
203-256-1100
MTC-00024139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:37am
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,
ROYCE ROBINSON
2183 E FM485
CAMERON, TX 76520-4805
MTC-00024140
From: Tom Collison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir: I still believe that Microsft is just a very aggressive company
and that their innovations in this field have advanced the entire group
forward in a very beneficial way for the American people. I believe any
futher judgements against Microsoft will result in higher costs to the
consumer.
Thank You, Tom Collison
MTC-00024141
From: Brian Furry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. Microsofts use of restrictive licensing terms keeps opensource
applications from running on windows.
This is really a crazy idea that Microsoft does with their OS. I am not
banned from using other car parts when fixxing my automobile. If I can get
the part to fit and work properly in my car GM or Ford or Saturn ... do not
have a ban prohibiting me from using nonproprietary parts. The same idea
should apply once I buy the OS. Why can't I choose what software I want to
run on windows?
Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps
from running on competing operating systems.
Why must I use the Windows OS for MS applications. If a third party OS can
run a MS app like Excel, why can't I use Excel on that OS. If I purchase
the software I should be allowed to use it on any OS I please.
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.) This license idea really tells me
that I must also buy their OS too.
Similarly If I purchased a GM car and they said I must buy GM tires in
70,000 miles when they need replaced and I need GM oil filters when they
are replaced every 3,000 miles.
Microsoft is very hostile to their customers in very sneaky ways and I
really feel that they need to have their system opened for all to use.
I don't have any freedom.
Brian R. Furry
Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
Watchung Hills Regional High School
108 Stirling Road
Warren, NJ 07059
(908) 647--4800 x5919
(908) 647--4852 fax
[email protected]
MTC-00024142
From: Bold, Gregory
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe the settlement is a bad idea and is too lenient on Microsoft.
Greg Bold
MTC-00024143
From: Lois Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:45am
Subject: Case against Microsoft--public input
I have followed the Microsoft charges since their inception due to my
husband being in the computer industry (Director/software architect).
Please stop the government intrusion into the free market. The persecution
against Microsoft needs to end. It is apparent that this successful
industry was the one area that was functioning and growing exponentially
free from the governmental intrustion that is existent everwhere else and
that could not be allowed to continue. Let the free market prevail and put
the government dollars/energy into Constitutionally directed areas, i.e.
national defense.
Thank you for your serious consideration of my observations.
Lois Schultz
Pittsburgh, PA
MTC-00024144
From: Daniel Berry
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
This settlement does nothing to curb Microsoft's predatory tactics.
Ask anyone in the industry who does not work for Microsoft and they will
tell you the same thing.
Daniel A. Berry
Sr. Project Engineer
Teletrol Systems, Inc.
603.645.6061
MTC-00024145
From: Joshua Eckert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:51am
Subject: The New Barons
As a person who spends his life delving into the workings of computers and
computer related services the Microsoft case has been a constant thorn. The
most painfull thing to hear is how my government is be bamboozled by legal,
literary, and spoken hat tricks of Microsoft. Instead of standing up and
stopping the tsunami of problems about to arise, the government would
rather hide under the covers with a ``If I don't see it, it doesn't
exist'' attitude.
Despite all the confusion that exists in the computer world for a laymen,
ethical standards do not stop at the door with this industry. And like the
Barons of early America, Microsoft has began to replace ethics with dollar
signs. Example: Several hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions
to both presidential candidates, to cover both bases. This little
investment has caused the government to roll over for the company.
The time for playing dead is over. This brood of software barons must be
stopped. You can not allow their ploys to blur your eyes from the truth,
this company has acted unethically and illegally to gain the power it has,
and if it is not stopped you will rue the day you let them run free. And by
that time they may be to big to stop.
MTC-00024146
From: David Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The attached has been faxed to AG Ashcroft's office.
-bs Dave Phillips...
Maranatha & Associates, Inc.
January24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 27442]]
Dear AG Ashcroft:
Microsoft had been responsible for some business practices that could be
construed by others as anti-competitive. Whether this had actually been
over the point of legality or not is, in my opinion, an open question.
There are many examples of other IT companies that have--and still
do--exert this kind of anti- competitive behavior who have not been as
visible as has Microsoft, or for whatever reason have remained closer to
the political mainstream.
Nevertheless, it is far better that this litigation has ended with a
settlement. The terms of the settlement address the main points of the
original lawsuit, such as the problems of retaliatory action and allegedly
unfair licensing. Settling the lawsuit has the advantage of causing less
disruption in the IT industry than would have resulted in Microsoft had
been broken up.
For this reason, I support the settlement, though I remain skeptical that
the original suit should ever have been brought originally.
Sincerely,
David Phillips
President
Maranatha & Associates, Inc. PO Box 1598; Lorton VA 22199
(703/541-0823/(FAX)703/550-1646)
MTC-00024147
From: Michaud, Andrew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I work in the software industry and have for over 7 years. I am a Microsoft
Certified Trainer and have taught Microsoft products for many years. I now
work for a small software company. This experience, I feel, gives me a
failry unbiased point of view regarding the proposed settlement between
Microsoft and the DOJ.
The proposed settlement does not adequately address the anti-competitive
behavior of Microsoft.
From this observer's position it appears that the settlement was written by
Microsoft's lawyers. Consumers must be allowed to purchase and run the
software that they want. Microsoft's argument that the browser is part of
the OS is specious and disingenuous. They should not be allowed to continue
the destructive, anti-competitive behavior that sparked this case.
Regards,
C.Andrew Michaud
Senior Customer Support Engineer
COURION CORPORATION
TEL 508-879-8400, ext. 240
FAX 508-879-3139
[email protected]
[http://www.courion.com/] www.courion.com
MTC-00024148
From: Davenport, Randy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, forcing Microsoft to sell off units is a great idea. I fully
support the states proposal. Microsoft has too much of a monopoly, thus
increasing prices.
Randy Davenport
Library Computer Systems Coordinator
SWBTS
817-923-1921 x 2733
MTC-00024149
From: Anders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. You are letting
Microsoft get away with having monopolized the market and misused their
power only because they are so big and powerful.
-Anders Ramsay
MTC-00024150
From: John Lahtinen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This proposed settlement is obviously insufficient.
Sincerely,
John M. Lahtinen
MTC-00024151
From: Josh Reashore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Hello,
As an avid computer gamer, I support the current MicroSoft market position.
Having MicroSoft in it's current position enables it to force software and
hardware manufacturures to produce product that works together for a good
computing experience (note: whql program). I have been using Windows
products (98se, ME, XP Professional) for over 4 years, and in that time, my
computer has only ``crashed'' (suffered a no-recoverable error
resulting in loss of data or functionality) once....
I believe that the court is overlooking a important fact in the field of
complaint that is reliability...People who know how to use a computer have
no problem with MicroSoft....People who are computer illiterate or not able
to grasp the basic functions of computer maintenance (unfourtunatley, a
large percentage of the populace) are the ones whogripe and complain.
Clearly, the solution for this aspect of the case is Education of the
population, not punishing a corporation
Thank you for your time
J.Reashore
MTC-00024152
From: Berry, Frederick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00024153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:51am
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,
JUDITH LEONE
419 OAKDENE AVE
CLIFFSIDE PK, NJ 07010
MTC-00024155
From: John Bijnens
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Hereby I want to explicity declare I don't agree with the settlement that
has been arranged for Microsoft.
Yours sincerely,
John Bijnens
Dijkbeemdenweg 29
3520 Zonhoven
Belgium
MTC-00024156
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:55am
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,
GRANVILLE DUTTON
9810 ridgehaven
DALLAS, TX 75238
MTC-00024157
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
[[Page 27443]]
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,
Richard Crum
15518 Cobre Valley
Houston, TX 77062
MTC-00024158
From: Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:12am
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
As a private citizen, I find the arrogance of Microsoft to be unacceptable.
Microsoft owns nearly most of the computer market (my perspective). They
are now spreading out like a cancer (like MSN, WinCE, etc.). Eventually, no
one, not even the government of the United States, will have a choice but
to pay Microsoft their taxes. What the heck am I talking about? What is the
difference between paying Microsoft or paying the government? The
government gets their due only once a year.
Given a position of owning everything, computers (desktop or not), the
communications between computers, etc. , Microsoft could easily collect
information on any politician, judge, professional, etc. and influence them
to see things Microsoft's way.
They claim to be humanitarian--``look at all the money we are
giving to charity''. I believe that this action to be a public
relations trick. Looking at the overall perspective, what is a 100 million
dollars compared to a company worth hundreds of billions? A drop in the
bucket!
Lastly, What will prevent Microsoft from holding the United States
government hostage? Microsoft is going to a subscription based product
line. Fail to pay them their taxes, and they will cut off the product. Our
military is increasingly dependent on equipment which uses the Microsoft
products. Are you frightened yet?
If nothing is done to break up the monopoly of Mircosoft, then nothing will
stop them.
MTC-00024160
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54am
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,
Karen Karen
123 N Spencer Rd
Onalaska, WA 98570
MTC-00024161
From: Dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello;
THis settlement is a raw deal. To call it a slap on the wrist would be an
insult to a real wrist slap. THey broke the law. They suppress competition
more effectively than Standard Oil did, and they INSPIRED all following
anti-trust law.
DON'T DO IT!
Dave Arkle
MTC-00024162
From: George Rebovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a BAD idea. Please reconsider.
George Rebovich
MTC-00024163
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58am
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,
Cynthia Brand
330 Merwin Ave. A6
Milford, CT 06469
MTC-00024164
From: Al T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:00am
Subject: I am against the proposed settlement
Many Microsoft critics have said this trial was only a waste of tax payer's
money. If the proposed settlement path is taken, it will be a waste of
money.
In my limited understanding of law, I see a company which has been accused
of a terrible crime. Also, this type of crime is not committed
accidentally. The Antitrust Laws are written in such a way that they cannot
be broken by everyday business practices.
Allow me to make a parallel with another terrible crime, murder. In the
law, there are many ways to consider the killing of an innocent person:
from first degree murder (pre-meditated, cold-blooded) to involuntary
manslaughter (something unexpectedly lead to the death of another).
Punishment is very different for these two crimes. For the first, some
states allow the death penalty. For the latter, people may not even go to
jail, if it can be proved that the death was 100% accidental.
Microsoft did not commit ``involuntary monopoly maintenance.''
The breaking of antitrust law was premeditated and done will all intentions
to kill competition and monopolize other markets. The same goes for all
other things Microsoft has already been found guilty of. But, in this
proposed settlement, it seems Microsoft will ``voluntarily
impose'' guidelines on itself to change its behavior. If this were a
trial of a person accused of first degree murder, would you let him or her
go free if they promised not to carry a gun anymore? If this was child
molester, would you let him / her go free if they promised not to visit
school playgrounds?
If the answer is ``no,'' then why is the DOJ allowing Microsoft
to walk out of the courtroom with a slap on the wrist, and a simple promise
to behave in the future? What about punishing them for what they have
already done? I can see this settlement might take care of future problems,
but what about punishing the guilty for their crimes? What punishment is
Microsoft going to receive for breaking the law?
If the DOJ accepts this settlement, it will fail to provide justice: it
will let the first degree murderer of free trade to go unpunished, in hope
s/he will behave in the future. That is not justice. Justice requires the
guilty to pay back the victims or society for their crimes. Microsoft is
not paying back anything for their crimes.
If this settlement is accepted, it will be a dark day in America and in
American Justice. I'm glad I live in a state where justice will still be
sought if this dark day should come upon this great nation.
Alberto Trevi?o
Orem, Utah @
MTC-00024165
From: Geoff Vanden Bout
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27444]]
I would like to start by saying that I'm not overly familiar with the law,
especially as it pertains to anti-trust situations. But I have done some
homework regarding this subject, and the proposed settlement worries me. I
cannot even begin to tell you what I think should be done instead, but I
can say that I am not in favor of the current suggestion. My primary
concern is the scope. This settlement is needlessly limited in scope. It's
narrow focus does eliminate some of the anti-competitve practices which the
settlement is trying to get rid of, but it leaves out others.
I will give a few examples of remedies I would suggest, but I don't expect
they will be practicle, due to my low knowledge and understanding of the
law. First, definitions of thins such as middleware and Windows Operating
System Product should be definitions rather than specific products, and
should be brodened to avoid loopholes, such as the version numbering system
being part of the definition of middleware. Also, I consider it dangerous
to allow Microsoft to penalize or reward (if used in certain ways these are
the same) OEMs and other distributors for selling competing software or
computers containing competeing software.
MTC-00024166
From: Mark MacKenzie (Shaw)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust case
I believe strongly that Microsoft has leveraged its predominant position as
supplier of operating system software to stifle competition and my choices
as a user/.consumer of PC services. I use a variety of personal computers
at home and at work. It is obvious to me as I have experienced these
problems, that Microsoft calculatedly decided to hide parts of normally
separate applications in its operating system routines and menus and did
the opposite as well which is probably worse. They made parts of their
operating system to be installed by otherwise separate applications such as
Internet Explorer. This created an interlocked spider web of operating
system and supposedly separate applications and created a practically
unassailable protected monopolistic environment.
It is also obvious that Microsoft has few if any honourable intentions to
clean up its act. There is also strong indications that high powered
business politics has influenced some of the current proceedings. I refer
to the change in heart of the DOJ in prosecuting this case after the recent
change in government.
I believe strongly that Microsoft has demonstrated an unwillingness to
accept the philosophy of the court decision and still seeks to stifle
competitiveness. The recent attempt by Microsoft to invade and
``swamp'' competition in the school system and soften the
financial impact of the judgement by better than 60% by using its own
software and refurbished older computers is proof of this.
Regards Mark G. MacKenzie
MTC-00024167
From: Alan Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a founding partner in a technology company that specializes in
internet based software solutions. We have been in business for 18 months
and have enjoyed the struggles of a fledging new business competing in the
open market. I would like to share with you my thoughts of the anti-trust
suit against Microsoft from the perspective of one who has faced the
challenges of competing in the open market and the affect Microsoft has had
on us as a company.
In the last 18 months of business I am aware of two separate occasions when
we have discussed the marketing plan of our two products in which we have
entertained the idea of establishing a partnership with Microsoft. On both
occasions, we felt that due to Microsoft's history of
``borrowing'' ideas of other companies and then offering the same
product to the public at a substantially lower price, that we could not
compete against our own product at the price Microsoft would offer. We have
decided to look elsewhere to fulfill our marketing needs.
I believe the free market of the United States of America is integral to
the economy. I believe that the ability for any American to start a
computer company and compete in an open and fair market is vital to that
economy. For as new comers to the industry compete, they will be forced to
be innovative to survive--and that innovation will advance technology
and improve the lives of more Americans.
I sincerely believe that my ability to advance my company's products and
serve the needs of my present and future customers will be at risk of
Microsoft is allowed to expand it's monopoly in the technology industry. I
believe accepting the settlement as agreed to by the DOJ and Microsoft will
do exactly that.
I urge you to seek a more fair solution--one that protects the free
market and protects companies who are willing to play by the rules.
I appreciate your time.
Sincerely
Alan Gardner
VP Design
IMPAVID Technologies
1935 East Vine Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, 84121
801.274.3721 (office)
801.274.3726 (fax)
801.391.0109 (mobile)
[email protected]
MTC-00024168
From: John Diley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:05am
Subject: Dear Sir or Madam:
Dear Sir or Madam:
The following summarizes my views about this case: ``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
Circuits unanimous opinion affirming Microsofts 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
antitrust settlements.''
The only thing I can add is that if ``settlement'' is allowed to
proceed, the Department of Justice should change its name to the Department
of Injustice or perhaps the Department of Graft and Bribery.
Sincerely,
John Diley
405 West Side Dr., #301
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
(240) 632-2101
MTC-00024190
From: Shawn Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The proposed settlement is hopelessly flawed and should be re-written. I've
read the settlement proposed by the dissenting states and it is what the
Proposed Final Judgement should have been. The weakness of the PFJ and
Microsoft's disregard for the law may be clearly seen in the release of
Windows XP with it's host of anti-competitive features (e.g. MyMusic,
Passport, and even remote control). As a concerned citizen responding under
the Tunney Act, I strongly oppose any settlement, including the Proposed
Final Judgement, that does not completely prohibit Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. s.
MTC-00024192
From: Vaughn Van Asten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't think the settlement with Microsoft will work, because they have
broken laws in the past, and will continue to do so.
Vaughn Van Asten
1315 Hendricks Ave
Kaukauna, WI 54130
MTC-00024193
From: scott swentek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:11am
Subject: remedy for microsoft monopoly
i have used microsoft operating systems since DOS 3.2...& i must say
that the products were far more secure & bugfree when there were
effective competitors in the marketplace...when i now use one of
microsoft's later windows operating systems i must attempt to disable many
aspects of it...such as the browser & email functionality...because
those products are simply too unreliable & insecure for any rational
person to use...microsoft's products would greatly benefit from the type of
rigorous competition that occurs in a non-monopoly marketplace...please
consider
[[Page 27445]]
breaking microsoft up into distinct...competitive...entities
MTC-00024194
From: Alex Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement as it appears to include no
guarantees that Microsoft will modify it's behaviour. It also appears to
cost Microsoft very little in actual costs. This is not right and should be
abandoned as a viable settlement.
MTC-00024195
From: Jason Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I
feel that the current proposed settlement does not fully redress the
actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to
commit similar actions in the future. The vast majority of the provisions
within the settlement only formalize the status quo. Of the remaining
provisions, none will effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its
current monopoly position in the operating system market. This is
especially important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's
previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress their
previous abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of those abuses.
This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a person
or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and
then receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot
commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts.
That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-intentioned,
it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A
wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Jason Day
MTC-00024196
From: Southeast Region CSA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13am
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 believe the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) for the Microsoft case falls
short in a number of areas:
1. I do not believe the PFJ puts into place a sufficient enforcement
mechanism.
2. The definitions of ``API'', ``Microsoft
Middleware'', ``Microsoft Middleware Product'', and
``Windows Operating System Product'' are not sufficiently broad
to prevent Microsoft from effectively circumventing the intent of the PFJ
in many cases.
3. The PFJ would much more effectively strengthen competition in the Intel-
compatible marketplace by explicitly allowing and protecting the use and
implementation of Windows APIs on competing operating systems. This would
allow applications written for Windows operating systems to be run on
competing systems, thereby lowering the high barrier to entry for those
competing systems.
4. The patents supposedly covering the Windows API should be disclosed. As
it stands, the undisclosed patents act as an additional barrier to entry
for competing operating systems that seek to re-implement the Windows API.
5. The PFJ should explicitly demand that descriptions of file formats used
by Microsoft application software be made public and freely usable. This
would allow applications written for Windows or competing operating systems
to interoperate more effectively with Microsoft applications, thereby
reducing the high barrier to entry for competing systems.
6. The PFJ needs to be expanded to address exclusionary practices that harm
competition from Open Source software and operating systems that compete
with Microsoft Windows. For example, in its current form the PFJ does not
address Microsoft SDK End User License Agreements (EULAs) that prohibit the
SDKs'' use with Open Source software. These practices raise the
applications barrier to entry for competing operating systems. Thank you
for taking the time to consider my comments. Note that these comments
represent my own opinion and do not necessarily those of my employer.
Regards,
Chris Armstrong
MTC-00024197
From: Mark Figlozzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft Settlement does not go far enough in attempting to
stop Microsofts ongoing, anti-competitive behavior. The danger Microsoft
poses to consumers, the Internet, and our economy, has never been greater.
Truly, the browser wars are over. But critical new battles are being fought
on new fronts. As a software engineer, I perceive that Microsoft is
leveraging its Operating System monopoly to take control, and charge the
Microsoft Tariff on all transactions, in three key areas:
1) STREAMING MEDIA.
Microsoft continues to leverage its Operating System monopoly to force its
inferior (bundled) Windows Media Player on uneducated consumers, who will
frequently use whatever the default is on their computer. New releases of
Microsoft Internet Explorer frequently contain bugs that disable competing
technology like Apples Quicktime. In fact, Microsoft has gone so far as to
ELIMINATE browser plugins, forcing developers to scramble to release new
versions of their competing media players which rely on Microsofts DirectX
technology. This does not benefit consumers; it serves only to extend
Microsofts monopoly. It forces creators of CONTENT online to license tools
from Microsoft, rather than using free tools available elsewhere, to
communicate their message. It implements a Microsoft tariff on all
streaming media.
2) INTERNET STANDARDS & ONLINE TRANSACTIONS.
Microsofts new .net initiative strikes a dangerous blow against the concept
of industry standards which made the Internet the massive success it has
become. It undermines the HTTP protocol, and uses proprietary technology to
conceal data from engineers attempting to develop systems. As a software
engineer who has worked with a variety of standards in network programming,
I perceive that .net was not designed to assist consumers: It was designed
SOLELY to ensure that Microsoft will get a little bit of money from every
single transaction that occurs online. .Net extends the Microsoft Tariff to
all web developers. The feature most sited by IT directors considering
.net: it integrates with windows. And most frighteningly of all:
3) NEWS AND CONTENT.
Operating System and web browser features implemented by Microsoft increase
traffic to Microsofts MSN News Network. For example, when a user enters an
address to a web page that is no longer there, the HTTP Protocol (the
universally-accepted protocol which powers the internet) calls for a
message to be displayed which says Error: Page Not Found. But users of
Windows XP have quite a different experience: Instead of displaying a
standard error message, the newest version of Internet Explorer sends all
viewers to a Microsoft Network Search Page. These search pages have links
to News stories and other content within the Microsoft Network. By sending
users of a web browser to a specific web page within its network, Microsoft
is attempting to leverage is Operating system monopoly into the area of
News and Content.
Additionally, Microsoft has created smart tags which will embed false links
into NON-MICROSOFT websites, misdirecting consumers to Microsoft-sponsored
content. This is equivalent to Sony embedding technology into television
sets which inserts commercials for Sony CD Players during commercials for
competing electronics products, or for Sony Pictures movies into news
broadcasts about rival films. Microsoft has announced, but not yet shipped
its Smart Tag enabled browser. Presumably, they will await the outcome of
anti-trust actions.
Please do not allow Microsoft to extend its Operating System monopoly into
News and Content publication. They have already demonstrated that they are
not a trustworthy information source.
SECURITY ISSUES
Biologists teach us that the most secure ecosystem is a DIVERSE one. When
viruses wipe out crops, money and lives are lost, but the human race lives
on because we grow more than one variety of food: not all of our crops are
susceptible to the same virus. The Internet, however, is increasingly
dominated by one strain: Microsoft. Their track record on security is
abysmal. This leaves us INCREDIBLY vulnerable to cyber attacks.
[[Page 27446]]
Please do everything in your power to ensure the safety of the Internet.
Take stronger action against Microsoft. Protect competition in the free
market. This is a crucial time and an issue of critical importance.
REMEDY
After my years in the technology sector, I have become convinced: Allowing
consumers the option to uninstall Internet Explorer, or to purchase a
stripped down version of Windows will do VERY LITTLE to protect consumers,
the Internet, and the ailing technology sector in general, from Microsofts
illegal, anti-competitive practices. The only way to stop Microsoft from
leveraging their Operating System monopoly into other markets is to create
Real Competition. And the only way to create real competition is to
SEPARATE the Operating System developers from the developers of other
software at Microsoft. This means BREAKING THE COMPANY IN TWO. One action
that would help alleviate the Microsoft Tariff is forcing the company to
publish and permanently open the file format for Microsoft Office
documents, which have become ubiquitous in the business world. Please take
this unique opportunity to do more to help our struggling industry, caught
between the recession and the choke hold of a determined monopolist.
Thank you for your time and hard work.
Sincerely,
Mark Figlozzi, Software Engineer
39 Goldsmith St.
Boston, MA 02130
MTC-00024198
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:10am
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,
Richard Brendsel
14860 Fillmore Ave. N. W.
Clearwater, MN 55320
MTC-00024200
From: Corner, Lisa, CA NAR/US
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:05am
Subject: Proposed settlement
This is a quick note to say that I totally endorse the open letter composed
by Dan Kegel--I am a cosigner! The problem with the proposed
settlement is that using the literal interpretation there are more holes in
it than in a sieve. What I am trying to say is that as defined by the
settlement none of Microsoft's ``new'' operating systems will be
impacted, nor will many of the strong arm tactics that Microsoft employs
against OEMs be prohibited nor even discouraged. I can't even begin to
describe how the concept of donating hardware and software to the education
system (while wonderful in concept) with out proper oversight will hinder
Microsoft's competition both open source and proprietary.... As a consumer
I am disgusted with the requirement Microsoft has imposed on some pc
manufacturers ... If I the consumer do not want the software, why should I
have to pay for the privilege of deleting it when I get my new system home?
All in all I feel the justice department has totally missed the boat it's
not just internet explorer that is the issue or even icon real estate on
the desktop. The real issue is at the core of how Microsoft does business.
Lisa Corner
Systems/Network Administrator
MTC-00024201
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:11am
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,
Robert Dolson
1688 S. Darr
Scottville, MI 49454
MTC-00024202
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
It is my fervent hope that both the judicial branch and the executive
branch (i.e., the office of the Attorney General) will take the Microsoft
case seriously, and implement a judgment which will aid in keeping the flow
of information, and the formats thereof, freely available. I am a
conservative, and I am a Microsoft Windows user as well. I believe in a
limited role for government; however, I believe the essence of that limited
role is for the government to ensure freedom for the people, which not only
encompasses Bill of Rights issues but also includes economic freedom. It is
Microsoft's avowed goal to control standards for the Internet and for
common file formats; a goal which, if unhindered, will result in anyone who
wishes to do business having to pay Microsoft whatever fees it may demand.
For there will be no alternative.
Please do everything in your power to protect the future economic freedom
of the American people.
Respectfully,
Michael A. Koenecke
MTC-00024203
From: Christian Swanson
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My comments on the settlement are as follows:
I work in IT--in a Microsoft NT/2000 environment. I have read the news
of the settlement and briefly looked at the documents on your website.
Working in the industry, I am witness to the lack of choice, or hurdles
that need to be jumped to choose alternate operating systems &
browsers. Netscape, Linux, Unix, MacOS, BeOS, Sun, Oracle & Novell
should all be alternatives to Microsoft & their OEMs. Microsoft
marketing wants us to believe they need ``the freedom to
innovate'' and this anti-trust lawsuit is a infringement on their free
market business. On the contrary, I feel this is more analogous to the
railroad & oil empires of the 19th century. The first to dominate had
free reign until they were regulated & rectified by the government. I
would hope that the DOJ Antitrust division would take this opportunity to
re-evaluate their original settlement and propose a new settlement that
would allow innovative people like Bill Gates & Steve Jobs to start a
business in their garages & be able to take on giants like IBM and
surpass them in technology.
Now that's freedom to innovate--we need a level playing field. It's
what America is all about!
Christian M Swanson
Network Administrator, IT
Evergreen Healthcare
Phone: 425.899.3710
Fax: 425.899.1755
MTC-00024204
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:18am
Subject: Settlement is bad
Settlement doesn't do anything to punish Microsoft for their deeds and it
doesn't do enough to restore competetiveness of the marketplace and real
innovation, not Microsoftish ``innovation'', which is nothing
more than stealing or buing out others ideas and integrating them into
their monopolistic products. Microsoft does nothing to provide
interoperability with other companies products, unless it serves their goal
to crush competition (WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3). It
introduces incompatibility between versions of its own software in order to
force users to upgrade perfectly working products and pay more to Microsoft
(Word 6.0 to Word 95 migration).
[[Page 27447]]
Microsoft destroyed internet browser market by integrating middleware
functions into operating system. Now Microsoft tries to do the same thing
with messaging software and authentication services, integrating them into
new version of their operating system. Microsoft destroyed operating
systems market using their licensing schemes, which punished hardware
manufacturers for installing other systems (IBMs OS/2, BeOS or Linux
distributions). By doing this, Microsoft disregards our right for freedom
of choice and stiffles real innovation.
Andrey Nikolayev,
Software Engineer
Emplifi Inc.
MTC-00024205
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:16am
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 Richardson
1009 Nina Drive
Springfield, TN 37172-6089
MTC-00024206
From: Damian Busby
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:18am
Subject: Comment on the Proposed Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As a professional who has been in the computer industry for nearly 10 years
now, I am deeply concerned with the settlement Microsoft has proposed as
``punishment'' for it's illegal acts. If the court were to accept
the settlement as proposed, they would be effectively telling the country,
and the world, that what Microsoft had done to build, and maintain, it's
illegal monopoly was acceptable, setting the stage for further raping of
the technological industry. The behavior of Microsoft cannot go unpunished.
In a country born and bred on variety and freedom, it would be a shame to
see a creative and important industry ceded to an unjust tyranny that
resides in
Redmond.
Damian Busby
310 SW 79th Way
North Lauderdale, FL 33068
MTC-00024207
From: A R
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Browser Monopoly
Microsoft Antitrust Suit
Department of Justice
I'm an ordinary Internet and Web user.
I prefer to use Netscape browser versions and have noticed some problems
that have increased during the past few months with Netscape mounted on
Windows 98. After Microsoft bought the stand alone E-Mail server,
Hotmail.com, they began a program of remodeling the service. Within the
past few months, Hotmail has been firmly integrated into MSN.com. Netscape
and Internet Explorer Hotmail presentations and features are not identical.
Netscape Hotmail has reduced operations through Windows 98. When logging
out of Hotmail, a user is redirected to MSN.com. IF Netscape is the browser
in use, the connection to MSN.com can take up to one minute using a T1
connection, the fastest connection available to the average user. While the
redirect is going on, all other open windows and applications are frozen.
No work with them is possible until the connection is made to MSN.com.
Additionally, there are increasingly frequent incidents of Netscape on
Windows 98 ``freezing'' and requiring a computer restart if one
wants to continue using Netscape. At the same time though, Microsoft's
Internet Explorer can be opened and run. I believe Microsoft is continuing
to create obstacles to the use of any browser other than their Internet
Explorer. I believe that as someone else has pointed out ``it is
apparent that Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the
Internet Web Browser market to any casual software user.''
Sincerely,
Albert Rohla
383 Duane St.
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
MTC-00024209
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:18am
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,
John Hanley
118 N. Leeds
Eldon, MO 65026
MTC-00024210
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:20am
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,
Ruth Jones
6001 Clear Bay Drive
Dallas, TX 75248
MTC-00024211
From: Larry Groebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just want to add my voice to those that think the current government
settlement with Microsoft is inadequate to address the situation. A break-
up of the company is the only way to bring a measure of competition back
into the market, and the only way to ensure that other companies have a
fair opportunity to innovate and dream up more advanced solutions. The fact
that no company would dare introduce a new operating system, but even a new
spreadsheet or word processor, because it would be a foolhardy endeavour,
is evidence that the situation needs to be changed. Beyond the business
implications, the pace of technological innovation has completely stalled
due to Microsoft's dominance. I use a Macintosh at home and the office, but
even here I MUST use Microsoft software for basic business applications,
because there simply IS NO OTHER CHOICE. Until the company is broken into
smaller units, this will remain the case.
Sincerely yours,
Larry Groebe
MTC-00024212
From: tylerthe3rd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please add my voice to those protesting the Microsoft settlement. I find
the suggestion that Microsoft should donate computers to school systems
absurd. Microsoft did violence to the system that we all rely upon, whether
we want to or not, to ensure that the goods and services that we consumers
buy
[[Page 27448]]
are available at the lowest price. Microsoft repeatedly and callously
sought not to provide better and cheaper products than its competition but
only to use its position to prevent its competitors from offering their
better and cheaper products. Microsoft now seeks to do penance by donating
computers to poor school systems. Not only would such a punishment fail to
be of a size that would deter future wrongdoing by Microsoft, but it is of
a piece with the conduct that Justice is seeking to prevent in the future.
By donating these computers which would, of course, run the Microsoft
Windows operating system, Microsoft seeks nothing less than taking even
more market share, this time from Apple Computer. The fact that such a
proposal is even being seriously considered makes me and others wonder does
Justice care more about closing this case than it does about ensuring the
survival of our free market system. Please overrule this proposed
settlement and bring economic justice to us.
Tyler E. Williams, III
P.O. Box 428
Drakes Branch, Virginia 23937
MTC-00024213
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:22am
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,
Larry Pridmore
31 Carlton Rd.
Waterloo, NY 13165-1636
MTC-00024214
From: Seth Taplin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a professional in the computer world, I'm ashamed that my government has
``sold-out'' to Microsoft with the proposed settlement. I feel
that the following article has a valid description of the ways in which the
settlement fails to address Microsoft's monopolies: http://www.ccianet.org/
papers/ms/sellout.php3 As a user of many different computing platforms and
operating systems, I see Microsoft as having a stranglehold on the consumer
PC market, and using their operating system's monopolistic powers to
prevent any other competing companies from gaining a foothold with
applications that challenge applications produced by Microsoft. This
includes browsers, email applications, etc. This situation is leading to a
stagnation of the software market that can only be addressed by drastic
action. Hopefully public comments like this will lead the government to
realize that this affects all users, not just those sending in comments
under pressure from Microsoft and its major competitors, but EVERY person
who has, does, or will use a personal computer.
Thank you,
Seth Taplin
Software Engineer
MTC-00024215
From: Baakkonen, Rodney
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/25/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I have never actually chosen
to buy a Microsoft product of my own free will. Their products were always
put on the machine I bought by someone else. Thus discouraging from
actively pursuing alternatives to Microsoft. Why should I buy something
from some one else, when I already have software loaded on my machine for
free. I believe that this monopoly in the end hurts creativity and
competition. And that a more satisfactory solution must be found.
Rod Baakkonen
7003 Rolling Hills Rd
Corcoran, Mn 55340
763-498-8958
MTC-00024216
From: Gar Ryness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I love living in the US and love that it is a free market. I have always
learned that an aid in that free market is that monopolies are disallowed.
Therefore, I am puzzled by this PFJ. I have a good friend that works at
Microsoft but I'm not mad at her. I am however, disappointed that her
company has become this protected monster that has somehow recruited the
goverernment to do away with any serious competitors. This is not fair. I
would ask that you reconsider this ruling.
Thank you,
George A. Ryness IV
3331 Appleton St.
Los Angeles, CA 90039
MTC-00024217
From: Spencer Crissman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:29am
Subject: Against Current Settlement
I am writing to convey my disagreement with the currently proposed
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I believe that the settlement,
as it stands now, would not suffice to prevent Microsoft from continuing to
use their monopolistic power in a way which, while beneficial to
themselves, has a negative impact on innovative development within the
software market. As a computer programmer, I believe that a better remedy
is one which provides an opportunity for other companies and individuals to
compete with MS on even footing, such as the forcing the company to reveal
the .doc and .xls formats, as well as making all API's and protocols such
as networking public. This would ensure that while MS is able to put out
products which work well on its platforms, other developers have a chance
to release software which works just as well, and can potentially help
break the monopoly which MS now holds. Also, note that I believe that any
proposal of MS to pay punitive fines via the donation of its software and/
or machines which run its operating system is absurd, as such action would
serve only to extend their monopoly further, a fact of which they are no
doubt aware. Such offers are hollow at best, and for the most part,
insulting.
Thank you for taking my comments into consideration in this matter.
Spencer Crissman
Toledo, OH
MTC-00024218
From: McGlaughlin, Jeffrey A
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that the DOJ settlement is not in the best interest of the
end-users of Microsoft's products, or the software industry. The alternate
proposed settlement put forth by California, et al, is better and could be
modified to serve the end-user interest by adding language giving recourse
to the users who have been damaged by Microsoft's actions.
Jeffrey A. McGlaughlin CID
Sr. Designer
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus Ohio
MTC-00024219
From: Tony Flagg
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit illustrates
how Microsoft has used technical means anticompetitively. The judge in the
case ruled [http://www.kegel.com/remedy/archive/final4.html] 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.
*Tony Flagg--Architect/Analyst
MTC-00024220
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27449]]
I am writing to voice my concern and dissatisfaction with the proposed DOJ
settlement with Microsoft. The criticisms and suggested amendments of this
have been outlined in detail by many in the field, including Dan Kegel
whose petition I fully support. Please consider that as stated, the
settlement will not result in opening the market to competition from other
vendors as, I would hope, is its intent.
Stephen R. Rogers, PhDNumerical Methods Lab Manager
Dartmouth CollegeHanover, NH 03755
MTC-00024221
From: Chris Eash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft and ``freedom to innovate''.
Hello,
As an undergraduate engineering student at the University of Tennessee, I
use Microsoft software on a daily basis, not by choice, but only because no
alternative exists for certain applications. As a user of other operating
systems (Linux, Macintosh, Sun Solaris) I am keenly aware that the internet
provides excellent cross platform interoperability. Things are changing
however, as web sites follow the trend of writing HTML that is Internet
Explorer specific. Try vising the 2002 Winter Games web site on a Macintosh
using Netscape, the page is not navigable. Microsoft's monopoly is so
extensive that despite complaints, most sites will not alter HTML that does
not function on non Microsoft software. Eventually the internet will be
navigable only with Microsoft products, or products with reverse engineered
compatability. With Microsofts propriatary software and legal clout,
reverse engineering might one day become impossible. Add the Microsoft .NET
strategey and you have a company that has made great leaps in controlling
the computer desktop and the internet while crushing competitors and
avoiding any significant punishment. To Microsoft ``freedom to
innovate'' means freedom to build a monolpoly, crush Netscape, Linux,
Apple, Corel, or any other significant competitior, in any market. Ask
yourself: ``Why does Microsoft charge for MS Office but give away
Internet Explorer for free?''.
Thank you,
Chris Eash
MTC-00024222
From: Nell Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:35am
Subject: settlement
I do not think the settlement with Microsoft went nearly far enough and am
extremely disappointed in this.
Nell Dougherty
Houston, Texas
MTC-00024223
From: M Lobo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello:
My name is Michael Lobo, 15 Matthew Drive, Franklin MA 02038. I wanted to
ask you folks to reconsider your proposed settlement with Microsoft. As a
software engineering manager ( I am currently the Director for Software
Development at a small startup company ) with 15 year experience in the
software world ( the last 7 have been ``Microsoft'' focused
)--I have seen enough abuse from Microsoft. They have fantastic
products. In the past I have cheered them on--glad to have some
universal standards that people can focus on. Now that they have THE
operating system, THE Office package, THE development products--they
are taking advantage of their monopolistic position. They are completely
abusing their powerful position--proof of that is in their recently
released licensing scheme WPA. If any other company tried to sell a product
that requires ( requires!!! ) a phone call or email to activate--even
through the customer fully paid ( in whole! ) for that product--the
company would fail. That policy is ONLY viable in a monopoly. The ensuing
hardships for individual and small business users ( I am both ) is
significant.
If I had a realistic alternative--I would use it--but Microsoft
is successfully doing everything they can to prevent that from happening.
We need to protect the software industry from this type of abuse. Handing
MS the proposed settlement will be the same as giving them a green light to
continue their predatory and anti-competitive practices.
Regards,
Michael
MTC-00024224
From: Bob Lewis
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inet...
Date: 1/25/02 10:34am
Subject: Comments on DoJ vs Microsoft proposed remedy
To whom it may concern,
My name is Bob Lewis. I write the ``Survival Guide'' column for
InfoWorld. Several readers have encouraged me to share the following with
you--it's a column I published shortly after Judge Jackson's original
verdict proposing an alternative remedy to those already discussed. I've
appended the text below; the URL is http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/
xml/00/04/24/000424oplewis.xml. A few additional comments beyond what the
column itself describes:
* As I'm sure quite a few other correspondents have already suggested, the
negotiated remedy fails a very basic test: It doesn't penalize Microsoft in
any significant manner.
* In addition to the Windows APIs described below, I'd also suggest
including the MS Office file formats and interfaces in the scope of the
remedy. In a sense, opening the Windows APIs is the remedy for actual
damages; the MS Office APIs are punitive damages.
* A benefit of this remedy not stated in the article is that it addresses
Microsoft's primary complaint about the trial itself and some other
proposed remedies: By opening the interfaces to Microsoft's products, this
remedy encourages further innovation on Microsoft's part since it can't
simply defend its market position by making it too difficult to create
competing products.
* A possible alternative to the $50 million per hidden API penalty
described in the article: Start with $5 million for the first discovered
hidden API or feature, and double the penalty for each succeeding one
found. Aside from these small points the article stands on its own. Even if
it doesn't alter your thinking, I trust you'll find it amusing.
Bob Lewis, InfoWorld
Headline: Some suggestions for Judge Jackson as he considers what penalty
Microsoft should get
``Your honor, we find the defendants incredibly guilty!''
-- Jury foreman, about Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, in Mel
Brooks'' film The Producers
CAN YOU IMAGINE if Lance Ito had been the judge? By the time this column
appears, the verdict itself (for the Microsoft trial, of course ... have
there been any others?) will be old news. The obligatory snap judgments
will all have been printed, so you've read that (a) Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson was right and should throw the book at Microsoft; (b) he may have
been right in theory but technology has passed the whole issue by, so the
penalty should be light; (c) the whole trial should never have taken place
because antitrust laws are bad for bidness. The fact is, in the eyes of the
law, Microsoft did harm and is guilty. The task now is finding a suitable
punishment. What strikes me about this subject is the dreary sameness of
the proposed solutions. Every one of them involves either breaking up the
company, expropriating its intellectual property (read
``Windows''), and/or supervising the company closely while
telling it to stop being so naughty.
Sadly, not one of these punishments withstands the most basic of ethical
tests: The punishment should fit the crime. The worst is breaking up the
company, because in the wacky world of Wall Street, a broken-up Microsoft
would probably exceed a unified Microsoft in total market capitalization.
The goal of issuing a punishment is not to enrich the guilty. Here's one
punishment that does not enrich the guilty and does fit Microsoft's crime
of abusing its Windows monopoly by bundling and dumping other nonmonopoly
products with it. What would be a suitable punishment? Prevent dumping,
require the bundling of competing products, and break the monopoly.
Resolving the bundling and dumping issue is easy: If Microsoft bundles a
product, it must also bundle the three leading competitors and only give
away a product after at least one rival company has done so. Breaking up
the monopoly is a more interesting challenge. Here's one way: Require that
Microsoft do what it should do--both publish and respect the OS
interface.
In other words, put the Windows API in the public domain--not Windows
itself, just its API. The court would enjoin Microsoft from hiding APIs or
changing specifications once published. This would create near-instant
competition of Windows clones. Without any hidden or changing APIs, clone
makers would only be limited by their ability to write code that works.
Enforcing this
[[Page 27450]]
penalty is where the fun would start: The court should establish a bounty,
which would be paid by Microsoft to the first person or company uncovering
a hidden or changed API. Make it $50 million or so per API, and the average
delay between infraction and detection would be measured in minutes. Here's
the best part: Internet Explorer is part of the operating system, so its
API, along with the API for the rest of Windows--all
versions--will now be in the public domain. So will the APIs for any
other applications Microsoft declares to be integral to the OS. Wham!
Microsoft suddenly has a strong incentive to respect the distinction
between OS and application.
That's my solution. Even if you don't like it, at least it's different from
the same old stuff. If, on the other hand, you do like it and are pals with
Judge Jackson, feel free to mention it to him. Or mention it to a pal of a
pal of his. Six degrees of separation should get it there.
MTC-00024225
From: Benjamin Guite
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get off Microsofts back.
Many Thanks,
Benjamin Guite
Gold Technical Support Analyst
WatchGuard Technologies
MTC-00024226
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:30am
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,
frank coffee
4935 Monte del Sol Ln
North Las Vegas, NV 89031
MTC-00024227
From: Johnson, Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Microsoft settlement is a good thing at this time.
Regards,
Lane Johnson
MTC-00024228
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This lawsuit should be settled immediately. Let Microsoft benefit the
school systems with their donations. School Boards in this country are all
underfunded. It would be great for the students and teachers. This should
result in higher test scores and better schools. et Microsoft go about
their of making excellent products for the world.
MTC-00024229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the settlement between Microsoft and the Federal
Government and the attorneys general to bring an end to the lengthy
antitust case. Don t let Microsoft s competitors undermine the settlement
and prolong the process for no public benefit.
MTC-00024230
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What has happened to Americas Long standing policy of Laize-fair? No one
was forced to purchase or use anything they didnt want too.
MTC-00024231
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement for US v. Microsoft is a terrible idea
for consumers. Microsoft owns the keys to the computing world and is
hindering progress. Though some of their products are laudable their
practices are awful. These practices often lead to better systems getting
crushed. Microsoft must be stripped of its monopoly broken up into separate
companies and heavily fined.
MTC-00024232
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the government should stay out of private industrie business unless
it affects national security. The Microsoft monopoly does not affect
national security. Let the marketplace sort it out (eg AOL s purchase of
Red Hat and Apple s use of Linux).
MTC-00024233
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the November 3rd settlement agrred to by the Federal
Government and Microsoft is in the public interest. I believe that this
settlement is fair and in the interest of everyone: the tech industry the
economy and especially the consumers.
MTC-00024234
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement was fair. Any further law suits is only to help greedy DA.
and States trying to score more money. This is absurd and will only hurt
the markets.
MTC-00024235
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don t think the government has done enough to prosecute Microsoft. Not
only are they squashing competition they are trying to make companies
forever dependant on them through their new licensing strategy. Does
everyone know that MS is a founder of this website (techleadership.org)
that is sponsoring this feedback application. I got a flyer in the mail and
a call at the office about responding via this web site. Only Microsoft
could be behind this kind of effort. Microsoft s tactics are so heavy
handed I am afraid to put my real name down because of fear of reprisals.
Somebody has to do something about them.
MTC-00024236
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a senior IT executive I am disappointed that the Justice Department did
not go further in punishing Microsoft. It is my experience that they
routinely use predatory business practices and are not good corporate
citizens. They only do what is good for Microsoft and do not care what
problems they create for everyone else. Although I do not necessarily
support a breakup I believe they are a monopoly of the worst sort. I have
heard that part of the settlement is for them to donate PCs and Software to
schools. I believe that this is nothing but a marketing ploy and should not
be allowed. I would rather see a major fine that is used to directly
support education. The fine should be in the range of several Hundreds of
millions of dollars. Microsoft is arrogant and has ignored previous court
orders and should feel the pain.
MTC-00024237
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ is a good one and it should be
accepted by the Judge. It is time to get on with more important issues. The
computing world had alot to thank Microsoft for. Most of us would not be
using computers or the internet today were it not for Microsoft. Thanks for
listening
Thomas Keiter
MTC-00024238
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THE PURNISHMENT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ALL PEOPLE WHO OWN A COMPUTER.
[[Page 27451]]
MTC-00024239
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is good. Anything else would not be fair to Microsoft. Other
companies should be required to do more to get my business. I believe
Microsoft is being attacked because of their success. Anyone else could
have done what they did. Don t make them pay for doing well in the
industry.
MTC-00024240
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please expedite the settlement with Microsoft reached in November. This
lawsuit was ill based from the begining. Microsoft has done more for this
country in the way of automation and has through building the most stelar
products arrived at a de-facto standard. The government benefits from this
standard because all businesses can share data and files with the
government without translation. For these reasons it is better to have one
company emerge as the monopoly so the government does not become like the
tower of babel trying to translate all the different file formats that we
be sent to it from business. Respectfully Please cease and desist and
settle this infamous lawsuit that is costing the American taypayer millions
of dollars with no benefit! Gerald B. Pohl Long Beach Calif.
MTC-00024241
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I manage a computer network of about 1500 Windows PCs and 50 Windows
servers for the CIty of Greensboro North Carolina. Your suit against
Microsoft has created a lot of uncertainty about the future of Microsoft
products and is impacting our ability to plan for the future of our
computer users in a negative way! I have been involved with computer
software and hardware for a good while. I am pleased with the new features
that Microsoft has incorporated into their software. It saves a lot of time
and a lot of money! I am no expert on legal matters but I can say for a
fact that Microsoft software is less expensive than most of their
competition s software. If you do not believe me just price Oracle database
software Sun Solaris or IBM AIX. High tech is the future for today and for
tomorrow as well. Please try to bring some common sense to the table when
deciding on this issue. These comments are my personal opinion and not the
official position of the City of Greensboro North Carolina.
Rick
Langhorne Desktop Services Manager City of Greensboro
MTC-00024242
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement makes sense the 9 uncooperative states should be sent home
with no reward for being stubborn and abusive.
MTC-00024243
From: Brian Kolaci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed resolution does not remedy the monopolistic
problem that Microsoft represents. I believe that the company should be
broken up into several smaller pieces. The operating system(s) should be
covered by a totally separate organization. It also fails to remedy the
problems that many developers such as myself that have lost alot of money
(and potentially millions/billions of dollars) due to allowing them to
continue their unfair practices so long. The damage is already done and the
world has had to pay for it with a current product that should have been
(and would have been) created over 10 years ago, but Microsoft holds the
whole computer industry back due to its unfair practices.
Thanks,
Brian Kolaci
12 Westminster Court
Montvale, NJ 07645
MTC-00024244
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I favor standardization of technology in the markets for a level playing
field. Taking apart Microsoft might only increase competition rise prices
for software and erode American leadership in this technology. Therefore
for economic reasons I support the anti-trust settlement.
MTC-00024245
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the decision already made by the court is sufficient. I feel it
should stand and all other attempts at modifying it be dismissed.
MTC-00024246
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Close this action NOW! No need to prolong this case. We all have benefited
from MICROSOFT individuals non-profit organizations profit organizations
profit corporations competitors governments and even our legal system.
CLOSURE!
MTC-00024247
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has done a lot of the community and the computer industry as a
whole. I really do not like the way any other company and the government
can try and hurt a company like Microsoft. What happened to freedom of
choice. The consumer has also had a choice on the type of software that
they use. This has not changed. This case is really affecting the economy
and needs to end. I vote to leave Microsoft alone and let the other
companies come up with great products to make the market competitive.
MTC-00024248
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my opinion on the Micosoft Settlement. I am a
registered voter. I am interested in the Dept. of Justice settling the case
with Microsoft. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.
MTC-00024249
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs American business is growing stagnant with all the laws that are on
the books now. Microsoft has done more to forward the tecnical field of
personal computers and been rewarded less than any other company in
history. One crybaby yelling out loud has created this whole mess. A
company that looks forward enough to come up with inovative products is now
being strangled because another company wants a large slice of the pie.
Lets stop this nonsense and get on with more useful projects like maybe
checking the books at Enron? Thank you Dick A. Campbell
MTC-00024250
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Accept the Microsoft settlement and let this be over with. Companies
continue to bring suite and the tax payers continue to pay for all of the
litigations. I believe the settlement is in the best interest of the
public.
MTC-00024251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement contains provisions that foster competition and benefit the
whole technology industry. Microsoft has pledged to share more information
with other companies create more opportunities for other companies and give
consumers more choices. Under this agreement Microsoft must design future
versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft software and
must disclose information about certain parts of source codes for Windows.
During these difficult times one of our highest priorities should be
improving our lagging economy. Hindering Microsoft will obviously not
achieve this end. Please do not punish Microsoft for pursuing the American
Dream. Please continue to endorse the settlement.
MTC-00024252
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27452]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the goverment should stay out of private enterprise . Look
what happened to AT&T. Prices went up and we are charged with hidden
fees. If the government wants to intervene in business they should look to
Enron. Now there is something to be concerned about. THey spent millions on
the Whitewater investigation and to what end. I don t think that Microsoft
should be punished for there leadership in Technology.
MTC-00024253
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s time the federal government settle this case with msft. You have a
healthy company that s innovative and brings us great products and then you
have Enron...where should the feds focus?
MTC-00024254
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the settlement should end this case microsoft and bill gates are america s
hope and pride against the rest of the world especially orientals in the
computer arena god bless them and cherish them!
MTC-00024255
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that this settlement is a tough but fair compromise that is in
the best interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy and
especially consumers
MTC-56
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam: Please express my comments in favor of settling the
Microsoft anti-trust suite. Microsoft(MS) is one hundreds of companies that
design develop and market software. The MS operating system has been and
continues to be an innovator in PC Operating System technology for the
common PC user. Given the complexity of the modern day CPU MS has lead the
industry in the providing CPU manufactures direction in the development of
new CPU s as well as innovative software technology to enhance its
capabilities. One reason for Microsofts O/S large market share is for the
high demand for quality performance and easy to use Graphical User
Interface(GUI).
Sincerely
Edward J. O Reilly
MTC-00024257
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that Microsoft has been punished enough. I also don t agree with
any breaking up of Microsoft into mulitiple Co s or some sort of
Deregulation. (I think the goverment has messed up enough companies with
deregulation.) I urge the DOJ to not slow down the speed of technology with
goverment red tape.
Thanks Chris Adams
MTC-00024258
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that ms should be held to the agreement and that a 3 man panel be
installed at the company. Also we should be giving a new windows program
without IE or some way to remove ms programs from the operating systemMake
them send a disk out to all reg. users
MTC-00024259
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This suit should be settled NOW. In fact I do not believe it should have
been brought in the first place. If they were doing illegal things then
convict them of that. The damage this has done to the industry cannot even
be calculated. Get is over with NOW.
Larry Clapp MIS Manager
MTC-00024260
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that this agreement is the best for everyone given the
circumstances. Now the government can spend its time and resources perusing
more important cases for instance Emeron and the prevention of other
attacks against this great country of ours.
MTC-00024261
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I concur and support the settlement with the DOJ. It is time to move on and
finalize this case. The MA AG and probably some others enjoy grandstanding
and are doing so to gain political mileage for a future run for higher
office. The MA AG is doing nothing to protect MA residents in attempting to
continue this case ad infinitum.
Sincerely
Leonard Segal
MTC-00024262
From: Barry Burgamy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
Please enter this as a statement of opinion regarding the settlement in
this case. It appears to me and most of the contacts I have that the only
outcome here that is right and proper is to allow our capitalism to have
its full control in matters such as this. Monopolies are in existence in
many places and it is often for the benefit of the consumer. Policing by
the means that has transpired is of value to keep larger firms in control
and insure that unfair practices are not allowed, but to any understanding
person further litigation on this subject is counterproductive. Please take
steps to close this matter and spend the funds on development and more
productive pursuits. Thank You!
MTC-00024263
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop this nonsense. Do the settlement and let everyone move on. Stop
using my tax dollars to pursue this ridiculous witch hunt.
MTC-00024264
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is past time to put this case to rest. We have wasted millions of
taxpayers dollars trying to kill the American dream. Not many people can
start with nothing and become a billionaire. We should be putting him on
the front page showing what an American can do or better what you can do in
America. Further he gives more money to help others than any other single
American. I guess thats what bothers the liberials they want the money for
themselves. And we can see that the crooked lawyers are getting rich and
nobody is complaining about that. Put a stop to it now
MTC-00024265
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i agree with the settlement.enough is enough. let it be over and done with.
MTC-00024266
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a Total waste of Taxpayers Time and Money. This is what others do
when they aren t # 1 They waste everyones time and money instead of
putting all that effort & money into their Product. The very same
people that started this BULL are the only ones thast will profit not the
taxpayers. MOVE ON!
MTC-00024267
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata Hesse I have closely followed the Governments unwarranted
attack upon Microsoft on behalf of Microsoft s multi-millionaire
competitors whose companies cannot compete well in the technology market
and who seek to destroy Microsoft in their greed to make more millions of
dollars while providing a high-priced user unfriendly and partially
defective. product.
[[Page 27453]]
There is no way that Microsoft cannot be considered a monopoly when it has
buy consumer choice 80% of the market. I would think the Government would
be proud to have an American company as the free world leader n computers
and computer software. Instead the Government at the urging and money
contributons of Microsoft s competitors are intent in destroying this great
American icon. How shameful this is and what a laughing stock the USA
government is making of itself to the rest of the world. Please do your job
and stop this thrashing of the leading software company in the world. There
are many other worthwhile areas for the Justice Dept to concern themselves
with than carrying the water for incapable millionaire technologists.
Sincerely
Harold V. Green
1009 KInsey Dr
Huntsville AL 35803
MTC-00024268
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that Microsoft has helped and paved the way to make industry
extremely efficient. Let them keep up the great work and help to make all
of our lives easier through comptuers.
MTC-00024269
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the terms of the Microsoft settlement are quite fair and in fact
require Microsoft to disclose information to competitors that could give
them a leading edge in competition. My understanding of the free enterprise
system is that it fosters an environment for superior products and
innovation. I don t believe that marketshare should be achieved through
legal maneuvering but rather by producing superior products that the
consumer wants. Perhaps Microsoft s competitors should spend more time
money and effort developing innovative products that can compete in the
marketplace rather than squandering their resources to on legal battles to
make Microsoft look bad.
MTC-00024270
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've been an educator for thirty years and involved in technology for the
same amount of time. Microsoft has always supported education in a variety
of ways including favorable pricing and support for teachers. Nobody talks
about how thier leadership has allowed for the integraton of many software
programs. This was not always the case and if they had not assumed a
leadership role I believe that we would still be fighting the battle for a
standard which all software companys could write if they chose. Microsoft
in some aspects has become similiar to a public utility. You want the
assurance of compatability and reliability that is not a given if you don t
have a leader.
MTC-00024271
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets stop wasting the TAXPAYERS money and accept Microsofts generous offer.
MTC-00024272
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The hidden agenda here is about Japan verses the US. If this settlement is
not approved then the usage rule technology in your next TV set will be
controlled by the foreign companies that already manipulate the MPA member
Studios. I am a career television engineer and a former WarnerBros
employee.
MTC-00024273
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be so kind as to settle the case with Microsoft. I believe you have
spent more of the publics money than the case is worth.
MTC-00024274
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement WAS NOT enough to punish the guilty party and
restore competition in the industry. Besides by funding and operating
biased organizations Microsoft is further using its financial power to
benefit itself using predatory techniques. The lengthy lawsuit is directly
caused by Microsoft s intentional delay to make a defacto victory over
Netscape using its monopoly power. Now with XP it is moving further in a
more aggressive and illegal direction. It will be most unfortunate for
America if this settlement is passed in its current form.
MTC-00024275
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We need to settle this case so that Business can come back to business.
MTC-00024276
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle this suit. The Federal Government had no justifiable reason to
attack Microsoft to satisfy their competition. This suit caused the stock
market to start to tank last year. Microsoft has been the greatest cause of
inovation and changes in the 20th century. Settle and let America get back
to work.
MTC-00024277
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s hard for me to see that consumers have been harmed by
Microsoft--consumer software is dirt cheap regardless of (or perhaps
due to) Microsoft s activities. But it s possible that their power could
lead to abuses of the consumer so the Settlement is perhaps a good thing to
avoid future damage. Now let s get back to work!
MTC-00024278
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constantly incorporating new functionality into an operating system is a
real benefit to the consumer and I hope that the government doesn t take it
away. I have purchased communications software in the past and I am glad
that I don t have to do that any more. For Netscape and other competitors
to argue that they should have been able to gouge me for their products
when I could get a better product built into my operating is idiotic and
anti-consumer. If I was determined to use them I could have downloaded them
or gotten Linux and written my own...but I didn t. The vast majority of the
American consumer marketplace wants service and convenience and Microsoft s
dominance is due to their success at meeting those wants and needs. Leave
them alone.
MTC-00024279
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a suit which should never have been brought in the first place. An
equitable settlement has been reached and it is time to put an end to the
litigation. The only reason for any state attorney general to keep going
after Microsoft is greed. If these trends continue it won t be long until
there s no businesses left in this country. Enough is enough!
MTC-00024280
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tough competition has served this country very well. Big companies tend to
create lots of opportunities where small aggressive companies can grow and
often do. Don t kill the drive to be big and great for the sake of trying
to be fair. It just doen t work.
MTC-00024281
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft was able to gain and maintain its marekt position through its
ability to offer customers a better product at a cheaper price than its
competitors. It is impossible for government officials or judges to know
that forcing Microsoft to take actions other than it would in the market
will make the consumer better off. I direct your attention to the book
Antitrust: The Case for Repeal or
[[Page 27454]]
Friedrich Hayesk s discussion of monopoly in The Constitution of Liberty.
The point is that the government should never have been involved in the
Microsoft case to begin with and the settlement is better than might have
been expected.
MTC-00024282
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read the court settlement and reviews of the settlement. After
reading the settlement I agree that the steps taken seem resonable. I
regret that the courts have to try and control Free Enterprise. I m don t
believe that Microsoft is the only Big company that is trying to have
control.
MTC-00024283
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This lawsuit has gone on too long. The browser issue has long been dead.
The average consumer doesnt really care about it. The average consumer can
download any browser it wishes and not use IE. Its true Microsoft did
strong arm competitors but they are also strong arming their customers with
product activation and licensing fees. Time to fine them heavily and go on
with life. Source code is proprietary and they should not be forced to give
it up. However this is not about lack of choice for consumers this is about
aiding Microsoft competitors because in actuality they dropped the ball.
Sun AOL etc didnt have the vision or marketing genus that Gates had.
Thereis No reason at all to help the competition which is what this suit
will do. Make MS pay a fine and get it over with. There are much more
important issues than their security bug ridden software. Consumers do have
a choice. They can speak with their wallets . Dont buy or build new
computers . Use Linux or purchase a MAC. I wish the DOJ and government
would get it through their heads. ITS THE ECONOMY GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.
Quit wasting tax payer dollars on this nonsense. The software and computer
industry will take care of itself. The consumert will take care of the
industry also by speaking with their wallets. Government has an uncanny
ability to botch things up . leave things alone. Average Joe could care
less. Get Average Joe back to work so he can pay bills and feed his kids
MTC-00024284
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reviewing the final settlement I favor the agreement and see no
reason that it should not be implemented as stated.
MTC-00024285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FUCK MICROSOFT
MTC-00024286
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the governments case against Microsoft and find the
judgement against them to be if anything too lenient. Please continue to
make it clear to the Microsofts of the world that unfair business practices
will not be tolerated in a free capitalist society.
MTC-00024287
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Often times rules and regulations do not fit. In these times talent like
that at Microsoft from leadership to work-force is vitally needed and
should not be hampered by poor achievers. It is really time to get off of
the company s back.
MTC-00024288
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If the government was acting in my best interests then this lawsuit would
have never made it to court. The fact is that Microsoft has drastically
increased my productivity while decreasing my expense to do so. The
lawsuits are a government backed money grab that benefits lawyers and
political agendas at the expense of the public. Please get off Microsoft s
back so that they can get back to innovating my future and the future of my
company.
MTC-00024289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My husband and I are for Microsoft. We do not believe it s a monopoly.
Where would we be with out Microsoft? No Where!!! Bill Gates is a fair and
honest man. I think some people just envy him because of what he has. He
has worked hard for ever dollar he has. Get a life and let people go on
with theirs!
MTC-00024290
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Those that spend my money to persecute Microsoft do not speak for or
represent me. If Netscape AOL Word Perfect ect. would expend the same
amount of energy on their products that they do on their lawyers they may
be able to make a product that I wash to buy.
MTC-00024291
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have listened to the arguments for both sides of this case for years. In
the end the only ones that I feel come out on top are the lawyers. They
have nothing better to do than go after the most successful business in the
world. Companies like AOL Netscape Sun and Oracle are jealous of the
success of Microsoft and feel that their products are not as good. Why not
let them produce higher quality product(s) and let that beat Micosoft. I
think that this should come to and end very fast with Microsoft allowed to
innovate create and deliver their high quality integrated products that the
consumer wants. All of this legal action makes the prices go higher. Let s
put a stop to it now.
MTC-00024292
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i am for the settlement
MTC-00024293
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The sooner the gov t. gets its meddling fingers out of this business the
better. Do you really think the tech downturn (and the rest of the economy
followed) and the timing of the anti trust case was pure coincidence? I
place the full blame for the severity of this recession on a few pesky
senators with a constituency of whiny second rate software companies. Let s
organize and get control the worst monopoly of all... the US Gov t.
MTC-00024294
From: Miller, JP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft has been harassed enough. The whole case against them is an
assault on brilliance, productivity, savvy marketing, quick acting,
independence and the success that comes from it. Those who seek to gain by
this case are sluggish, unproductive parasites who wish for windfalls at
the hand of government coercion. Settle with the smallest restriction on
Microsoft as possible. I want the best they can offer me at the lowest
possible cost. I am not speaking on behalf of my employer,
JP
MTC-00024295
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the settlement reach with Microsoft and wish to end the
government prosecution. There is no monopoly and Netscape and AOL use more
anti-competitive tactics than Microsoft. I routine get AOL and Netscape
icons and programs loaded without any say. In fact Verizon DSL loads a
version of Netscape with no option to stop the installation. Stop all
future prosecutions of Microsoft.
MTC-00024296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27455]]
I agree with the settlement
MTC-00024297
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support any settlement that separates the operating system
section of Microsoft from its applications section. Maybe then Microsoft
will be more concerned about releasing a product that is good for all users
when they release the next version of Windows.
MTC-00024298
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is high time to let Microsoft get back to the business of running its
business. We have seen extreme damage inflicted on Microsoft by forces who
believe that the easiest way to compete is via the court system and NOT by
providing product excellence. Over the years Microsoft products have come
to dominate their market niches simply by being the best of breed. Please
don t let the government get in the way.
MTC-00024299
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the settlement stand. Lets get on with business.
MTC-00024300
From: Eric Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00024300 0001
As a private citizen and software professional, I am troubled by proposed
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. As a computer scientist, I'm
most troubled by the illogical definitions of ``API'' and
``middleware'', which considerably weaken the relevance of the
proposed settlement, and in some cases negatively impact the competitive
practices of other vendors, which the settlement should be helping instead.
As a US citizen, I'm left with the feeling that a great deal of time and
money were spent to address illegal practices by Microsoft, but this
investment will have no lasting benefit. It appears that the few
potentially meaningful actions in the proposed settlement are eviscerated
by simple loopholes, like changes to the names or version numbers of
Microsoft products. The proposed settlement fails to identify Windows-
compatible operating systems like Linux, which have an important role in
the PC software market. In my opinion, this further erodes the position of
US vendors in this crucial global market. I urge you to carefully
reconsider the proposed settlement in light of the findings of fact in the
case.
Thank you,
Eric Hughes
Waltham, MA
MTC-00024301
From: smachaevich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement has not gone far enough to fixed what Microsoft has
done over the years sweeping the little man out of the way for big
prophets, the settlement should reconsider more harsh fines and implement
safety checks to ensure that it CAN NOT continue its practice of killing
fair play in software.
Steven A. Machaevich
903 Fireside Circle
Smyrna Tn 37167
Thank you for listening.
MTC-00024302
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I implore you to end the settle the case sgainist Microsoft immediately.
This is not and never has been about consumer protection but just a ploy by
a few large corporations that are unwilling/unable to let the marketplace
decide the leader. The marketplace has spoken. As I said in letters to the
SC senators. There are no victims here please stop this harrassment of MSFT
on behalf of AOL et al.
Respectufully submitted
Melinda Fischer Schenk
MTC-00024303
From: John Bleichert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings!
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed settlement in the
anti-trust trial against Microsoft. I am concerned not only as an American
citizen, but as a citizen who has chosen not to run Microsoft computer
products at home and, as a result, has seen his ability to navigate and
utilize the internet decrease due to the Windows-specific protocols that
are pervasive on the network. I greatly fear that, should this settlement
prove ineffectualy, within 1 year I will no longer be able to even log on
to the internet, much less use it in my daily life, unless I am running
some version of a Microsoft operating system. There is one specific part of
the propsed settlement that presents a problem[1]:
``* Further ensuring computer manufacturers'' freedom to make
middleware decisions by requiring that Microsoft provide uniform licensing
terms to the 20 largest and most competitively significant computer
manufacturers.'' This is rather vague and open to wide interpretation.
To be frank, there are *no* ``competitively significant computer
manufacturers'' in the areas that Microsoft maintains a monopoly. In
the ``middleware'' area they are in fierce competition with
several competitors, most of whose products are free and open-source, thus
protecting them from being bought out of the business by Microsoft. The
competition in middleware, while in peril, is still rather strong. The
major monopoly that Microsoft maintains (and mention of which is
mysteriously small in document [1]) is that of their desktop operating
system. Just try to go to Dell's website or CompUSA and buy a computer that
doens't have some form of Windows on it. Sure, one can purchase an Apple
computer, but their share of the market is so small that, due to the
economy of scale, Apple computers are very expensive relative to their
Windows-based counterparts. It is this monopoly situation that is most
relevant to the consumer, not the middleware situation. Microsoft faces
intense scrutiny and competition in that area (middleware), and I think
(hope) it will be won by an open standard based on technical merits, not
the capital strength of one company. Please recall that most of Microsoft's
actual competition on this planet is freely available from non-corporate
entities who will probably not be helped (or hindered) by the proposal as
it stands. The middleware provisions are aimed at the nebulous business
competition of Microsoft, and the consumer may or may not profit from this.
Any business sanctions levied against Microsft will prove ineffectual. This
has been proven in the past. The reparations must be more fundamental in a
computing sense:
1.) Force Micorsoft to publish (and adhere to) the specifications for its
Internet Explorer browser and all it's add-on technologies (ActiveX,
VBScript, etc.) so that other, competitve browsers can view the same
content created with/for those addons and co-exist with Internet Explorer
on the Internet.
2.) Force Micorsoft to publish (and adhere to) the specifications for all
networking protocols used by its server and desktop operating systems, so
that other operating systems may co-exist with Micorsoft systems on a
network.
The publishing of these protocols must begin promptly to prevent Microsoft
from sidestepping their publication in some manner. It is these
exclusionary tactics in content and networking that provide the greatest
threat to the American (and planetary) consumer. One corporate entity
owning (yes, owning) the desktop operating system (and therfore all the
data, personal and professional) of 95% of this planet's population is a
disturbing thought. I thank you for your time and, as an angineer in the
computing field, I trust in your resolution to close this anti-trust trial
in a manner which provides the consumer with considerably more choice than
they currently have.
Sincerely,
John Bleichert
MTC-00024304
From: C.J. Keist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:35am
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
I'm sending this note to show my full support and agreement with the Open
letter to the DOJ by Dan Kegel. His letter can be found at the following
URL: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html I just want the chance to
prove ``Money can't buy Happiness''--a bumper sticker
C. J. Keist
[[Page 27456]]
UNIX/Network Manager
Engineering Network Services
College of Engineering, CSU
Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1301
MTC-00024305
From: Ron Shonkwiler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft judgement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I want to express my opinion that Microsoft's near monopoly has been
harmful to innovation in the computer industry. I would cite these
examples, from the past, of companies other than microsoft who brought
great ideas to the computing scene. These companies are in danger of going
away under the heel of Microsoft's near monopoly. To start with, Apple
computer brought the mouse/icon oriented graphical user interface (GUI) to
the general public in the early 1980's. This was a stunning innovation
which opened up computing to the masses. The Unix community brought
networking to the computing pubic in the early 1980's. Among the public
benefits of this is Email and remote printing of documents. Networking
comprises of several innovations such as ethernet, the TCP/IP protocol,
methods for internet addressing and routing of data. All these and many
other networking inventions make for the great world wide connectivity of
computing today. Apple computer brought the innovation of proportional
fonts to computing in the middle 1980's. With this, they opening the way to
desk top publishing.
MIT brought the idea of X windows to computing, again in the 1980's. The
innovation here is the method of combining a GUI with networking. X windows
allows any computer, no matter what type, to have a graphical interface. It
also allows for remote and distributed graphical computing. Sun
microsystems brought the idea of network file sharing to computing and
donated their tested and proven protocol to the computing public. With this
innovation, computer programs can be centralized and maintained in a single
location. Wordperfect brought the innovation of word processing software to
the public. Wordperfect is now all but gone away. What helped to bring
about their demise is that fact the Microsoft had a competing word
processing product, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft controlled the operating
system on which Wordperfect had to compete. Microsoft is known to have made
Wordperfect's software difficult to run on their operating system. Sun
microsystems brought the innovation of Java programming to the computing
scene. This allows for a single version of software to be written that runs
on all computers. This marvelous technology also allows actual computer
programs to be run on any browser anywhere in the world. This invention has
already been instrumental in several fields such as education over the
internet. Besides not inventing something like Java, Microsoft actually
attempted to destroy it. Fortunately the courts intervened and Java
development continues.
Netscape brought the innovation of the internet browser to the general
public. I don't need to mention how big and important that has been.
Microsoft initially did not appreciate this great invention. I think THIS
IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. We might not still have browsers if it were not
for Netscape. In time Microsoft realized their error. Then they attempted
to squash Netscape just as they had Wordperfect. That Microsoft was
criminal in their attempt to usurp the browser has been proven in court, it
is without question. All these things, and hundreds more, show how much
better off we are when thinking people have the freedom to develop their
ideas. This could not happen if computing is dominated by one company. A
company know more for usurping the creativity of others than for its own
inventions.
The proven charges against Microsoft cry out for redress. This company has
shown itself to be villainous in the computing community and a detriment to
innovation for the good of the pubic. Laws have been broken and appropriate
punishment must be meted out. How else to punish a company leveraging its
near monopoly in one field to eliminate competing in another than by
breaking it up? In my opinion, I thought the original requirement that
Microsoft should be split into the operating system company and the
applications company was marginally appropriate. The browser section might
also have been split off. I still think that minimally Microsoft should be
broken up. This would be beneficial in my opinion for the public.
Ronald Shenk
MTC-00024306
From: Kennedy, Matthew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a software engineer,
I am young enough to remember my experience with computers in the course of
my k-12 education. The proposed Microsoft settlement, particularly the
portions regarding donations of software and computers to schools, benefits
Microsoft and helps to extend their monopoly powers in disgusting ways that
I can't even believe are being considered. Young people in schools become
familiar with computers by using them as tools. It is important for the
technology industry that the set of tools the rising generation of
professionals is familiar with is a diverse one. If young people are
exposed to many competing technologies, they will carry that knowledge into
professional careers and foster competition among vendors. It does not
behoove the health of the industry if young people are only exposed to
Microsoft operating systems and software or Microsoft operating systems
running on Macintosh hardware.
Furthermore, this is hardly a punishment for Microsoft. People who become
familiar with Microsoft tools in school, will be more likely to buy
Microsoft software later, hence generating revenue for Microsoft in the
long run. It costs almost nothing in terms of real money for Microsoft to
donate software, how is that punishment? The proposed settlement doesn't
even require Microsoft to bear the entire burden of hardware costs. There
should be no mistake that Microsoft has acted unethically in its business
practices and should actually be punsihed for that behavior. The schoolyard
bully should be given detention, not allowed greater reign of the
schoolyard.
-Matthew Kennedy
MTC-00024307
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:40am
Subject: I believe MS is an abusive monopoly
To whom it may concern, Thank you for taking the time to view my comment. I
am an average, but informed computer user and have been using a PC (in
various incarnations) since 1984. It is my informed opinion that Microsoft
(MS) has greatly abused its position in the market place to stifle
competition in all areas in which it competes. Most notably, the web-
browser market. Given the flagrant disregard displayed my MS for the court,
I beg you to take clear and decisive action to remedy the problem with MS.
Please do not administer a simple slap on the wrist. No fine, no oversight
committee, no reprimand will change the way they do business. MS has
demonstrated this to us before. Every year that passes without a real
remedy is another year MS has in the marketplace to destroy competition and
innovation.
I want very much to quit using Microsoft's operating system but find it
nearly impossible to find a competing product. If MS is left unchecked,
those alternatives which have not yet been squashed by them will certainly
be wiped out in the near future. Please take swift and sure action to
mitigate the damage Microsoft has already done to the markets and stop any
further abuse of power.
Thank you
Eric See
Inventory Control Coordinator
MTC-00024308
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:38am
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,
Dave Culver
6256 Andrews Drive East
Westerville, OH 43082
[[Page 27457]]
MTC-00024309
From: Sue Kindzia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2208 Katherine Drive
Niagara Falls, NY 14304-3011
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This is to give my approval to the settlement reached between Microsoft and
the Department of Justice. I think it is time to put this behind us and go
forward. Our economy has suffered enough from hamstringing one of our most
successful companies. Bill Gates built Microsoft from the ground up. Other
companies had this chance also. Bill Gates just did it smarter and quicker
than anyone else. I wonder if anyone remembers what the world was like
before Microsoft. Computers and programs worked together poorly, if at all.
Bill Gates changed that. He made the computer revolution real for the
average person. It used to be that we rewarded innovation. Now it seems to
be considered a major sin, punishable by lengthy, costly, time-consuming
lawsuits. Microsoft has accommodated the Department of Justice. It has
agreed to design future versions of Windows with the capability to make it
easier to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows; and agreed to a
technical oversight committee to ensure future adherence. Enough is enough.
Please give your approval to this agreement. It is best for the country if
we can allow Microsoft to get back to business. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anthony Kindzia
MTC-00024310
From: Thad Hoffman
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/25/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that IE must be pulled from the OS. This all started when they
forced Netscape out. Now the browser market has regained some momentum,
Netscape 6.2 and the Mozilla movement both have working browsers available,
if IE were to be a separate company, not tied to MS, then fair competition
could return to the internet world. But with .Net and IE all being
interrelated, MS is just furthering their monopoly stranglehold. AND DO NOT
SETTLE TO HAND MS THE EDUCATION MARKET. What kind of idiots are you? Sue
them for a Monopoly and you solve it by handing them another market?! Why
am I paying taxes to pay for incompetance?
Thad Hoffman
MTC-00024311
From: Steven F. Crisp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: The Microsoft/Windows monopoly continues to make life difficult
for users, impedes progress towards interoperability, stifles competition
from new companies, and even marginalizes established companies due to loss
of market share.
The proposed settlement does not, in my view, remedy Microsoft's ongoing
monopolistic practice. I was very disappointed to see this administration
step back from vigorous prosecution of this dispute, since it weakens the
bedrock of our capitalistic free-market economy. I am sorry to see the
State's left to pursue stricter remedies on their own. I include one
specific problem area, but this is only illustrative of my overall view of
the proposed settlement: The DOJ 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. The Court
of Appeals specifically rejected Microsoft1s petition for rehearing on the
bundling issue, and the DOJ settlement does nothing about it. Please
reconsider your position on this matter,
Respectfully,
Steven F. Crisp
Work: MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Rd: Voice: 781-271-4568
Bedford, MA 01730: Fax: 781-271-2096
MTC-00024312
From: Seth Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, I
feel quite strongly that the proposed Microsoft settlement is not in the
best interest of consumers. What stops Microsoft from continuing its
normal, borderline illegal practices? thank you,
Sincerely,
Seth Anderson
CIO, DLA, Inc.
626 W. Randolph St., Ste 603
Chicago, IL 60661
MTC-00024313
From: Smith, Crystal
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/25/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Suit
January 24, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I would like to share with you my thoughts on the pending antitrust suit
against Microsoft. While I appreciate the range of quality products and
services that Microsoft provides, I am greatly concerned that they do so at
the expense of their competitors via an unfair monopoly. Just as we cannot
have one phone or cable company, we cannot allow the ever-growing
technology field to be monopolized by a single corporate entity. I urge you
to not let Microsoft off the hook by settling the lawsuit. Please keep my
thoughts and concerns in mind when weighing whether or not to settle and I
thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Crystal Smith
MTC-00024314
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I write to you from the UK to express my views on the Microsoft Settlement.
I do not doubt that you will have received much correspondence on this
matter and realise the enormous responsibility it carries. I work as a
computer engineer and in truth probably owe my career to Microsoft (indeed
I am a Microsoft Certified System Engineer), they have brought great
advances in computing and made it accessible to those who may previously
have stayed away from it. This however does not mean that how they achived
this is right or that other companies would not have achieved the same
thing in the absence of Microsoft. Given the amount of time that has
elapsed since the original case and the pace of technology it is important
to consider that any settlement based on the past will not impact the
present or the future, and therefore ultimately will not bother Microsoft
let alone prevent them from repeating such behaviour. As such any
settlement must have an impact on present and future Microsoft business
practices, and must leave no doubt in Microsoft's mind, or any other
business that contemplates the same, that big business is above the law.
Competing business'' should now be given the opportunity of a level
playing field against Microsoft products at the expense of Microsoft and
its propriatory technology. Since this is the core of Microsoft's monopoly
position and its strength, it is only fair that this should suffer in order
to restore the balance. Microsoft is large enough to survive this event and
it may give them pause to look to the quality of their products once more
since users would then really have alternatives to turn to (this is
particularly relevant given Mr. Gates recent memo to the company regarding
the security of their products, an area that has been seriously under
developed in recently times at the expense of Microsoft customers).
I have been following the media coverage of the case with great interest
and find that the settlement agreed with Microsoft will have little or no
effect on the company, stronger messures must be taken to punish the guilty
and right the wrongs, the settlement proposed by the breakaway states is a
very good start towards bringing this case to an effective resolution.
Regards
Ash Ridley, MCSE.
MTC-00024315
From: Les Millichamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
You call this a settlement? I simply don't agree that it even comes close!
It is difficult for me to believe that what has been
[[Page 27458]]
purported as a settlement is anything other than a sham as it fails to
address the monumental multiple problems created by Microsoft's antics in
the marketplace they dominate because of their unfair practices. Microsoft
has stepped on every person who operates a computer system, from the
smallest to the largest, and has deliberately hurt small business concerns
in an effort to get rid of them!
Respectfully,
Les Millichamp
President,
Compu-Aid, Inc.
MTC-00024316
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
Microsoft built a better mouse trap, lets not punish them for that. Where
would the computer technology be if it were not for Microsoft.
David Day
8o5 Jerome St
Marshalltown, Ia. 50158
MTC-00024317
From: Bill MacKay
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe the proposed settlement for the Microsoft anti-trust suit is NOT
Good. In my opinion, it does NOT allow for Open Source usage under Windows
to the extent necessary.
Sincerely,
William T MacKay
MTC-00024318
From: Chuck Howell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am concerned about two aspects of the the proposed remedy that in my
opinion do not go far enough to foster true competition in the public
interest. 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
Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39). Required full disclosure of
APIs (including so called ``hidden'' APIs used by Microsoft
products) and of file formats would enable third party developers to better
integrate with Microsoft applications, leading to true competition in
operating systems.
Sincerely,
Charles C. Howell
20508 Straham Way
Sterling VA 20165-5147
(703) 450-4928.
I am a U.S. Citizen.
MTC-00024320
From: Leigh Letson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement the government is considering for Microsoft does nothing but
allow them an even larger share of the market thus negating any possible
punitive effects such a settlement is intended to render. Please reconsider
this action at this time and devise a punishment which will actually be a
punishment.
Leigh Alan Letson
MTC-00024321
From: Leigh Letson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement the government is considering for Microsoft does nothing but
allow them an even larger share of the market thus negating any possible
punitive effects such a settlement is intended to render. Please reconsider
this action at this time and devise a punishment which will actually be a
punishment.
Leigh Alan Letson
MTC-00024322
From: Barry Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement as proposed does not punish Microsoft enough for the crimes
they have and continue to commit. Most of what I have read seems to be an
attempt to stop Microsoft's future activities and yet they continue even
now to abuse their monopoly power using new tactics. My greatest concern is
Microsoft's forrays into the media. They are attempting to buy public
opinion even after they have been found guilty in court. Don't let
Microsoft become the ``corporate O.J.'' Put some teeth into the
settlement.
-Barry Wilson
MTC-00024323
From: Alfred Petermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:53am
Subject:
Gentlemen: We are a small group of organizations, one not-for-profit
Gentlemen: We are a small group of organizations, one not-for-profit
targeted to the poor, which are often overwhelmed by data processing and by
communication needs. We have experienced nothing but support from the
Microsoft products and feel that their software is critical to our success.
The attacks on Microsoft because of their size, because of their founder,
because of their aggressive business practices and for other reasons have
just about reached the limit. The time has come to put this episode to rest
and to stop further attacks, especially the most recent AOL suit. When will
these guys begin competing in the marketplace and stop using our government
and the courts to try to get even.
Sincerely,
Alfred R Petermann
MTC-00024324
From: Christian Roy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:53am
Subject: Comments on the appeal
Dear Reader,
I am canadian, i know i do not have your constitutional rights but i feel
responsible in a way to voice my opinion. As you must know Canada and U.S
are neighboors. You must also know that the decision you will make will not
only make a difference in the United states but also all around the world.
I would like alot if you would all take this fact into account when you
propose a solution. It is true that Microsoft has a monopoly. And it is
also a fact that justice isnt fast enough to react to it appropriately.
Thank you
Christian Roy
Independant Developper
Quebec, Canada
MTC-00024325
From: Luke Fowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:38am
Subject: concerns about Microsoft case
Hello,
I am writing to voice my concern with and disaproval of the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I do not believe that the
current settlement will do enough to prevent Microsoft from continuing to
abuse their monopoly position in the operating systems market. I fear that
if this abuse is not stopped, that Microsoft will use this power to
unfairly leverage themselves into other sectors of computers and technology
in general. They have already done this with their Internet Explorer
browser. I was a steadfast Netscape user until Microsoft started to
disregard the HTML standards, and build incompatabilites with Netscape. As
a result, many web sites have been designed with Explorer and this non-
standard HTML code in mind, causing Netscape to render these pages either
incorectly or not at all. The current settlement proposal does not come
close to recouping the illegal gains that Microsoft has made from
consumers. I am in favor of a settlement that, at the least, opens the
Windows operating system and Office suite APIs (application programmer
interfaces) and file formats.
Sincerely,
Luke Fowler
MTC-00024326
From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the settlement with Microsoft for it's illegal practices, as it
stands now, is a bad idea. While there are many problems with the situation
as it stands now, one in particular disturbed me when I heard it: the
possibility that Microsoft could get out of this by ``donating''
product to schools. This would bring us right back to the initial problem:
their defective software being in so many places and used by so many that
noone can find options that actually work. If you really want to hit them
where it hurts, tell them to pay for the legal fees and the fines they've
incurred in CASH. Giving it to schools would be a great idea, but make sure
it's in currency and not in worthless product. They couldn't give enough of
that junk away to make up for the damage they've done.
[[Page 27459]]
Sincerely,
Bill Hubscher
Huntsville, AL
MTC-00024327
From: Curtis Lisle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse or or other appropriate official
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I would like to register my opinion that the anti-trust decision against
Microsoft should be further strengthened before its adoption. I agree with
Mr. Dan Kegel's petition that some definitions and punitive measures are
too narrow and provide Microsoft with opportunities to work-around the
government's intended result. I have an extensive background in software
design, including a Ph.D. in computer science to assist my understanding of
the technical details of this anti-trust case. I request that the
Department of Justice officials make every effort to maintain open
practices for software engineering including fostering operating system
competition and the propogation of free, reusable software. These freedoms
will continue to fuel the creative results of both large and small
businesses in the US. Please feel free to call if I can be of additional
assistance. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Curtis R. Lisle
Solution Architect,
SGI (Silicon Graphics)
Maitland, FL
407-206-7940
MTC-00024328
From: William Verthein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:58am
Subject: In Favor of Settlement
I am strongly in favor of the settlement and closing this ugly period of
corporate warfare disguised as consumer protection. It has always been
clear to me that this case has been primarily driven by the competitors of
Microsoft and not consumers themselves. The so called consumer advocacy
groups who have spoken out against Microsoft and the settlement are more
often than not funded by the same competitors who have pushed this suit
forward. Further efforts to prolong this case will only hurt the US economy
and will never help consumers but instead help those companies who cannot
win in the market.
Settle this case NOW.
Bill Verthein
MTC-00024329
From: Mike Quan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is an insult to our nations policy of
fair play and justice. It was found and upheld on appeal that Microsoft is
guilty of being an illegal monopoly. Even without a court finding, anyone
familiar with the computer market can see that Microsoft is the most
ruthless monopoly this company has ever seen. It's actions have effectively
crushed competition and it continues to use this power to illegally prevent
any competitor to enter the market. I believe that the any effective and
fair settlement should require a break up of Microsoft with at least two
formerly Microsoft companies competing in the operating arena and two in
the applications arena. If this is not possible, then the remedy must
include strong and decisive regulation by the court with the intent of
dissipating the monopoly and preventing the spread into other areas of
technology until Microsoft's market share in the operating systems and
applications areas are reduced at least 10 per cent. The settlement should
also provide adequate compensations to past victims of their unfair
practices such as Netscape, Apple, AOL, Word Perfect, and others.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Michael Quan (a MSFT shareholder)
P.O. Box 6277
Torrance, CA 90504
MTC-00024331
From: NIKKI WHITTLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:59am
I realize the Tunney period closes on Monday for the Microsoft Settlement.
Being a resident of Washington, a tester of Microsoft software, and a
person that recommend technology to other including seniors, I feel that
the entire suit brought by the government is ridiculous. I also am someone
who has worked with micro small businesses mainly minority owned for
several years. I have spent my entire business life watching businesses
struggle with cash flow and struggles to meet obligations and tax payments.
I understand how hard it is to grow and get a chance with the big guys.
However I also realize that it is extremely expensive to be innovative. I
suggest that the smaller guys learn to work with the big guys rather than
use the courts to control competition.
I train many people that are retired or homemakers who have never used
computers before. I can't imagine what it would be like for them if they
had to deal with their operating system and their browser separately. Face
it Netscape just didn't keep up with the wants and needs of people. I could
see computer manufacturer's putting in two browsers for your choice, but to
break up the company would be adding to the frustration most people have
with who to talk to on any problem.
I heard and read in the news all the arguments from the competitors, those
terrible things Microsoft said in sales meetings. Well I beg you to sit in
on any sales meetings of any companies that are successful, probably even
some that aren't too successful. That is how businesses rally the troops.
As far as hurting the consumer which is the basis of this suit. Hurting us?
Microsoft has built a better mouse trap. The are truly interested in
figuring out what the public wants and needs. Their pricing is very
competitive and they also offer many ways to get into software at reduced
costs.
It's time to get this thing settled, I think it has hurt the industry in
general and hurt the economy. Let's get back to the work at hand and let
Microsoft have the freedom to innovate.
Pacific Alliance Intl Inc.
NW Business Services
Whittle Whimsies
MTC-00024332
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:57am
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,
Iman Idiot
222 Fuckwit Drive
Bumfuck, CA 90210
MTC-00024333
From: Mike Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:00am
Subject: re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
The point of the anti-trust decision against Microsoft Corporation was, I
hope, to reduce their effective capacity to act as a monopoly.
Unfortunately, allowing Microsoft to propogate their software into the
classtrooms of America will only increase their market share. If the
software forced onto school computers is the Microsoft product, this is
like ramming a state-sponsored religion into the throats of every American
child in the manner of a ``captive audience''. Please consider
forcing Microsoft to contribute only hardware and not software to the
schools, perhaps taking into account the advice by Rob Young of RedHat.
Already schools have a fair mix of Microsoft and Apple software, allowing a
third software opinion into the schools can only increase the minds of our
kids.
Thanks for your consideration.
Mike Rice
MTC-00024334
From: Dr. Scott Steinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27460]]
I am a user of both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products. I have been
appalled by the business practices of Microsoft, as uncovered in the
evidence presented in the antitrust trials and manifested by the company
since the trials. Microsoft continues to use their monopoly status to bully
other companies, whether they are allies or foes, to crush competition, to
stifle innovation and to reduce the choices of consumers. Hardware
manufacturers are forced to pay royalties to Microsoft whether or not
Windows will be sold or used on that machine. Their new .NET strategy will
strengthen their monopoly status by forcing users to pay for mandatory
upgrades and funneling much of the internet's advertising and financial
services through Microsoft channels. I realize that the government is
averse to breaking up Microsoft (although I agreed with this plan).
However, the current antitrust settlement is too simplistic and does not
prevent Microsoft from maintaining and extending its monopoly and
anticompetitive practices.
I encourage you to enforce strict restrictions and impose heavy punitive
sanctions against Microsoft.
Thank you.
Scott Steinman, O.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.O.
Chair, Biomedical Sciences
Southern College of Optometry
1245 Madison Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104-2222
Phone: (901) 722-3380
Fax: (901) 722-3325
MTC-00024335
From: Jonas Roel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a BAD idea. In the long
run, Microsoft's monopolistic predominance of the American Tech market will
only hurt American tech companies in the future. These are companies which
try to innovate, and forward technology. Microsoft only tries its best to
stagnate this innovation my snuffing out their competition. Please reject
the Microsoft Settlement and save America's predominance in the tech
sector.
Sincerely,
Jonas Roel
Tampa, Florida, USA
MTC-00024336
From: Joe Dumais
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I would like to enter my comments on the ongoing Microsoft litigation. I
believe it is time to close the case and reach a negotiated settlement. The
measures the court is now suggesting are in my opinion sufficient. I
disagree with those states that are pressing for further measures. I also
believe that the case has left the realm of benefiting the consumer and has
acquired the appearance of a personal quest by government lawyers to bring
down this corporate entity. Please move forward with the existing
settlement agreement.
Thank you.
Regards,
Joe Dumais, Ph. D.
1712 Westview Road
Fort Collins CO 80524
(970) 495-1053
MTC-00024337
From: Mark Morlino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
You probably get a lot of these so I will keep it short. I believe that the
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft matter is NOT in the
best interest of the public. In my opinion, the PFJ will make it too easy
for Microsoft to continue to be a ubiquitous and evil empire.
Regards,
Mark Morlino
Systems Engineer
InterSystems USA
303.858.1000
MTC-00024338
From: Michael C. Appe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This brief note is intended to express my support for a quick settlement to
the prolonged ordeal that is the Microsoft anti-trust case. This case is
ripe for settlement. An agreement exists which has your Department's
preliminary blessing, the concurrence of Microsoft and most of the state
complainants and the sanction of the trial court. There is no rational
reason not to ratify this agreement.
The settlement requires Microsoft to offer its Windows products to computer
manufacturers at uniform terms, without exclusive software tie-ins. It
requires Microsoft to configure new Windows systems in ways that embrace
the use of non-Microsoft software. It obligates Microsoft to essentially
open up its technology to its competitors. In return for this and more
Microsoft may continue to exist in its present corporate state. This is a
fair compromise. Let us allow this productive company to get back to the
business of leading the IT industry and our economy into the new century.
Sincerely,
Michael Appe
30 Campfire Circle
Alton, NH 03809
MTC-00024339
From: Hans-And-Lisa Hazelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe the proposed settlement does enough to address Microsoft's
ongoing unfair business practices, nor does it do enough to correct the
results of their past actions.
Hans Hazelton
Anchorage, Alaska
MTC-00024340
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:02am
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,
Al Jacquez
490 Huntington Dr.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
MTC-00024341
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I just wanted to express my opinion on this issue. I feel very strongly
that Microsoft should not be let off with a weak settlement. Despite its
claims of innovation, Microsoft has a history of squashing innovation with
its Windows monopoly. Internet Explorer was clearly not nearly as good as
Netscape several years back. But simply by supplying Explorer with Windows
and not allowing vendors to include Netscape, Netscape became all but
irrelevant and development basically stopped. The worse product one because
it was not a fair market. If Microsoft is let of with a simple settlement,
they have won.
Thank you for listening to my opinion.
-Sean Kennedy
MTC-00024342
From: Louis F. McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's in the best interest of me and the rest of the nation's consumers that
the antitrust litigation be terminated as soon as possible. Please, accept
the proposed settlement. L
Louis F.McDonald
4250 Lansdowne Dr.
Atlanta, GA 30339-4615
(770) 434-3816
MTC-00024343
From: John W. Naylor, Jr., P.E.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sure you have heard all the arguments of what MS is doing wrong and
what MS proponents are saying they should be left alone. But one argument
that I see being
[[Page 27461]]
avoided is what effect MS has on the ``so called'' independent
marketplace. MS's position in the marketplace has been so dominant and
their tactics so intimidating that the trade mags fear any negative
reporting will cut them off from access to MS product information thereby
destroying their very survivability. Lets go all the way back to 1995 when
Windows95 came out. PC Magazine did an exhaustive review in their December
issue where they benchmarked and reported on 100+ machines. About 65 of
these PC's arrived at the testing labs with the new W95 OS and the rest had
the older W4WGs. The magazine went into paragraphs of detail how machines
with this type of Hard Drive outperformed those with another type by 3 %
and that those with this type of video chip outperformed the others by 5%,
etc. Yet, there was not a single mention that the machines the older W4WGs
OS outperformed those with the new Windows 95 OS by 40 %. Three
manufacturers (Gateway, Dell, Micron) submitted two almost identical
machines. the ones with W4WGs outperformed those with Win95 by an average
of 37 %. Now how could these authors make a big deal of the 3 and 5 %
differences in hardware performance and fail to notice a 40 % difference in
performance between two types of machines ? Why did PC magazine decide to
place the tables containing the benchmarks of Win95 machines and W4WGs
machines 100 pages apart ? A year or so later, PC mag compared database
programs with the two primary ones being Lotus Approach and MS Access. The
Lotus product scored 11 Excellence and 1 Good in 12 categories; whereas
Microsoft scored 7 Excellents and 5 Goods in the same 12 categories....they
tied for Editor's choice ! 11 to 7 is a tie ? Why couldn't we get that last
year when the Mets played the Yanks....think how good that would have been
for NY ! Yanks and Mets tie for World Series title, Yanks winning 4 games
to Mets 1.
As a business owner , using the MS operating system becomes more and more
cumbersome and more and more of a threat to security. I own an engineering
firm and do work for the government. I have serious concerns about the
security of MS operating systems when they illegally bundle their other
products in the OS. Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are NOT part of
the operating system. I do not want them and the security risks they
represent on my office machines. I do NOT want a MS passport, but the only
way I can get MS tech support is to sign up for another venture that MS has
invested in.
To thwart competition from DR DOS, MS sold OEM's DOS/Windows for $29.95
whereas Windows only $45. That's like me having a choice of taking a bus
and train to work or and having to pay more for the train ride if I decided
to skip the bus and walk to the train station. The DOJ has got to stop this
behavior and MS intimidation of the free press. As a minimum, the DOJ
should insist that:
1. No products for other MS marketing initiatives are installed by default
with the OS. If they can include Accessibility Options (stuff for
handicapped users) as an install ``option'', they should
certainly be able to let Passport, MSIE, Outlook and all the other software
bundled in XP as an ``option''.
2. MS should be forced to disclose and detail any ``hooks'' which
it's MS Office and other programs use to interact with the OS.
3. The government must NOT become an accessory to the crime and accept MS's
offer of establishing them in one of the few markets they don't control
(schools). This penalty will make MS a ton of money when they are forced
into the never ending MS Upgrade cycle. It would also squeeze out the
companies that have been servicing this market before MS discovered them.
4. MS must not be able to disavow responsibility for their negligence. MS
knew about the UnPnP security vulnerability before the OS was released but
released it anyway, exposing millions of their customers to attack and
financial loss for two months before they released a patch.....just so they
could take advantage of the holiday buying season. I am concerned about my
liability and the damage that could result if a terrorist hacked into our
network and downloaded plans say to a federal couthouse building that my
firm designed. I have taken all plausible steps to secure this network
environment but now MS left a known hole in the OS that I had no knowledge
of, that they did have knowledge of but didn't tell me about even though it
posed a real threat to my own network's as well as national security since
they didn't tell millions of usres with possible access to sensitive
information just so they could rake in more cash for the Xmas season.
Jack Naylor, P.E.
President, Naylor Engineering
Executive Board Member, NYS Society of Professional Engineers
Legislative and Governement Affairs Committee, National Society of
Professional Engineers.
MTC-00024344
From: Brian Allbee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:07am Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been
converted to attachment.]
MTC-00024344 0001
To Whom It May Concern:
With the deadline for public response to the proposed Final Judgement
against Microsoft upon us, I've run out of time to make this as coherent as
I would like, so some of this may be little more than citation of web-
pages or other media that make some of the points I am concerned with.
These problems lead me to conclude that the Proposed Final Judgment, as
written, allows (sometimes encourages) significant anticompetitive
practices to continue. I do not believe that the Proposed Final Judgment
(as it stands now) is in the public interest, or that it should be adopted
without addressing various issues:
Revised Proposed Final Judgement
III.A.2: (Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM ... because it is
known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating) 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. What about machines that do not boot with ANY Microsoft
OS? A VERY cursory count of alternative operating systems that are
available for Intel-compatible PCs yields 18+ alternatives (see http://
dir.yahoo.com/Computers--and--Internet/Software/
Operating--Systems/), NOT including all the various different
distributions of Linux (20+ different alternatives as a bare minimum) and
varieties of Unix (6+ alternatives, at least). Is this remedy supposed to
allow the companies that produce these ``alternative operating
systems'' to compete on a fair basis with Microsoft? One of these
alternatives has already essentially died (BeOS), and I strongly suspect
that a good part of the reason it did was because it COULD NOT compete with
Microsoft's on a fair basis, despite it being in my opinion) technically
superior software.
III.C: (Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from
exercising any of the following options or alternatives) [items
paraphrased]:
1. Installing Non-Microsoft middleware/applications;
2. Distributing/promoting non-Microsoft middleware/applications within the
Windows OS;
3. Auto-launching any non-Microsoft middleware/application(s) upon
completion of the Windows boot-process;
4. Allowing third-party boot-loaders to launch a second OS (presumably
installed by the OEM);
5. Allowing pre-boot promotion of its own IAP offer; 6. Exercising any of
the options under section III.H (summarized below)
III.H: (Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the
Court, Microsoft shall) [items paraphrased]:
I. Provide easy removal of Microsoft middleware/applications to users and
OEMs;
2. Provide easy means to users and OEMs to allow non-Microsoft middleware/
application configuration as defaults for various file/document types;
3. Make certain that no Microsoft product makes alterations to any OEM-
configured defaults without alerting the end-user that such alterations are
being made (and presumably what effects they will have); Again, I note no
explicit language prohibiting Microsoft from acting against OEMs that
provide non-Microsoft OS system-options (though III.C.4 is a step in the
right direction). None of these points makes more than a token effort to
allow a consumer (through the OEM) to CHOOSE whether they want a Microsoft
OS or something else entirely/exclusively (including no OS whatsoever from
the OEM). If the core of Microsoft's monopoly is the Windows OS (and
derivatives thereof), then it seems logical that any final judgement must
make some effort to address the potential consumer desire to NOT have
Windows on their PC. To do otherwise is to take NO action towards allowing
fair competition between the various OS options available.
[[Page 27462]]
Even simply guaranteeing an end-user the right to return an undesired/
unused MS/Windows installation disk for a full refund from Microsoft would
be better than nothing--If an end-user has no reasonable choice but to
purchased a new PC from an OEM with Windows pre-installed, and they have no
use for (or desire to use) that OS, they should be free to remove it from
the machine without having to shoulder the burden of a non- returnable
Windows disk. Frankly, even if they use Windows initially to retrieve an
alternative OS from the Internet, so long as they are not using it when the
new OS is installed, they should be allowed to return it (providing; of
course, that they REALLY aren't using it again), in my opinion. It's not
--that-- different from taking a car for a test-drive, and seeing
another car at another dealer during that test-drive, in my opinion. There
seem to be no provisions to prohibit Microsoft from holding back
application and/or protocol information that are required to be available
to for-profit third-party competitive concerns from not-for-profit concerns
(i.e., Open Source projects, which inarguably compete with Microsoft). From
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html: ``Well,
Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning this time on the
same letter of the old law to not only get a better deal, but literally to
disenfranchise many of the people and organizations who feel they have been
damaged by Microsoft's actions. If this deal goes through as it is written,
Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than
before. Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement
specifically protect companies in commerce-- organizations in business
for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found
guilty of monopolistic activities against ``competing''
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial
vendors--computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The Department of
Justice is used to working in this kind of economic world, and has done a
fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing
undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the industry. But
Microsoft's greatest single threat on the operating system front comes from
Linux--a non-commercial product-- and it faces a growing threat
on the applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. The
biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is Apache,
which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache
practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which
also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights
at all under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don't even
exist.
Section III(J) (2) contains some very strong language against not-for-
profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's
criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of
its business, so much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively
kill these products.
Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals with
disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-
Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this section, Microsoft discloses to
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs),
Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-
operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at
the legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify
commercial concerns only. But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the
government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--even the
Department of Justice itself--have no rights. It is a good thing
Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows.
I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by
outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill
here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one
coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping to get
it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.'' Other good points are raised (more succintly
and in more detail than I have time to go into) at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html (this list is taken from the end of the page, and is
linked on the page it came from to the relevant sections of the article) *
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. Most
of the article at http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/sellout.php3 (though it
may be a bit harsh) raises some good points, as does Ralph Nader's open
letter
Brian D. Allbee
MTC-00024345
From: Daniel Boudrot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, Under the Tunney Act, I would like to add my
opinion of the Microsoft settlement. I believe that this settlement in no
way will cause Microsoft to behave any less anti-competitively than they
have in the past. Not only are there enough
[[Page 27463]]
loopholes in the definitions to allow Microsoft to sidestep the settlement
at any time, but even if they violate it there is no real enforcement
mechanism other than to try them in court again.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Boudrot
MTC-00024346
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:07am
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,
Ray Clyde
112C Love Loop
Richards, TX 77873-4207
MTC-00024347
From: Steven F. Neill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Steven F. Neill, believe this settlement to be not nearly adequate. The
monetary amount is not enough and the method of payment is ludicrous.
Punishing a monoply by further strengthening it is no solution. I sincerely
hope that this will not stand.
-Steven F. Neill
MTC-00024348
From: Mcubed Technologies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
-Staff of Mcubed Technologies
MTC-00024349
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I think that the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I think that it is a
bad idea because the schools should have the money and choose for
themselves what they want . In addition should Microsoft base their
settlement on the ``list'' or ``retail'' price of the
items, there would be the opportunity that I think is unfair, to take
advantage of everyone again, the schools, the government, and the people.
If this were tax deductible, they could claim full list price on
merchandise that they could not otherwise easily sell. Please do not let
them get away with this.
Sincerely,
Bill Marlin
541 Emerald Park Court
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
MTC-00024350
From: Bevill, Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:12am
Subject: NO to Microsoft!
The settlement is a BAD idea. I oppose it. -Rob
MTC-00024351
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10am
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,
Doug Shaddix
502 Stillwaters Drive
Marietta, GA 30064-2551
MTC-00024352
From: Mars Cheung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone, for God's sake. You get better things to do
than wasting tax payer's money.
MTC-00024353
From: Kyle Gaspar
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/25/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the settlement because it doesn't address the Microsoft OEM
license agreements which penalize OEMs if they install another operating
system (such as linux) in the bootloader.
Sincerely,
Kyle Gaspar
Philadelphia, PA
Republican
MTC-00024354
From: Gotshall, Ron
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/25/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald A. Gotshall
5217 Starwind Point
Hermitage, TN 37076
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The purpose of this letter is to express my support of the settlement
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. After three long
years of litigation, I was pleased to hear that the Justice Department had
finally found an agreeable mediation. Too much money has already been
squandered over this issue. Any more waste of taxpayer dollars is
unconscionable in my opinion. I urge the Justice Department to enact the
settlement at the end of January. Microsoft has made many concessions
within the details of this settlement. Microsoft has agreed to license
Windows at the same rate to the twenty largest computer manufacturers,
which will thereby eliminate competition for rights between producers. In
addition to this, Microsoft will also disclose some of the protocols
internal to the Windows system. This provides for the design of competing
software that is increasingly assimilated into the Windows operating
system. It is clear, then, that Microsoft has made their share of
concessions throughout the mediation process. I would hope that the Justice
Department recognizes the importance of enacting this settlement. Thank you
so much for your time regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Ronald A. Gotshall
MTC-00024355
From: Sean Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my concern with the settlement of the Microsoft
anti-trust case. I find it hard to believe that a company that is guilty of
fraud and anti-competitive prices is getting any breaks at all. I ask for
the most severe restrictions and punishments that can be levied against
Microsoft. I am a computer programmer. I have been working with computers
since 1982 and have experience in a number of computer platforms. Apple is
a wonderful technology company that almost everyone agrees has been hurt by
Microsoft's illegal dealings. However, Apple's technology is so far ahead
of MS, that I am not worried about them. The people that I worry about are
the startup companies... the entrepreneurs that start the new revolutionary
company that change the way will work and live. These companies cannot
start under Microsoft's current reign. That hurts competition, deprives the
consumer of choice and leaves us stuck with an overpriced inferior product
called Windows. A perfect example is the stellar BeOS. BeOS is simply the
best operating system created and put to market. It was easy to use and
pretty, as well as being devilishly
[[Page 27464]]
fast and 100% reliable. When BeOS came out for the x86 platform (Intel
Pentium compatible processors) the entire developer community was excited.
Here you had a super stable OS with a great set of free developer tools and
what looked to be a skyrocketing market of users.
But that fell through very quickly when Microsoft pulled out their license
with OEMs and read, ``You cannot put any other operating system on a
computer sold with Windows (pick your version here).'' So, all the
excitement became, well, yeah it's the best, but what's the point?
Microsoft shut them down and now all of those people are out of work and
BeOS is gone. What very well could have been the next revolution in
computing is now nothing more than a small blurb in a history book. That is
adversely affecting the economy. They stole the Macintosh interface and
called it Windows 95--hurting one of the most inventive and
progressive computing companies ever. They killed Netscape. They have put
security as a minumum priority, a Microsoft memo published on the web says,
``unless security promotes the bottom line, it goes.'' Less than
one month ago, Bill Gates himself said that the company would be focusing
more on security. Why? The some 60,000 viruses for Windows are getting out
of hand and after selling themselves to businesses as the best business
platform, it's becoming quite obvious that any UNIX flavor is easily a
better solution for a secure, business computer.
To bring the problem back to a personal level--just think of using
Word. How many times has it messed up a document you were working on? Do
you know any one who likes Word? I don't. We have to use Word because
Microsoft killed Word Perfect, Lotus Word Pro and all the other word
processing programs. One thing Microsoft learned was good marketing can
sell anything to everyone. I am not opposed to that either, obviously we
all take responsibility for making uninformed choices. However, the bad
choices of the public have steamrolled us into the position of no longer
having a choice and leaving Microsoft to do as they please. I have stopped
using Microsoft products and no longer develop software for Windows. I can
only imagine that someday my family will be one of those getting laid off
or unable to fulfill their dreams because we are trying to compete in a
field where there is no competition and no rules. I won't be a part of
that. Please take all steps you can to levy the heaviest punishment you can
on Microsoft.
Sean Rose
[email protected]
MTC-00024356
From: .
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello and thank you for listening.
I would like to state that I do not believe that the DOJ's settlement with
MicroSoft is the best idea. MicroSoft as a company has shown too much
disregard for the public and government already. They seem to believe that
they are above the law.
Please do not allow them to continue their path of market domination and
control. This is another example of America not paying attention. We will
become as dependant on MicroSoft as we have been to Middle Eastern oil. And
look where that has taken us.
Thank you again for listening.
Respectfully,
Matthew R. Ross
P.O. Box 2613
East Peoria, IL 61611
MTC-00024357
From: MGSeeley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my displeasure with the proposed judgment against
Microsoft in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I agree with the
thoughts of many of the opponents of the settlement including Ralph Nader
and Thomas Reilly, my home states AG. The settlement leaves far too many
loopholes for Microsoft to continue in its anti-competitive practices and
offers no more then a slap on the wrist for their past indiscretions.
I firmly believe that Microsofts actions warrant a harsher, more
restrictive punishment or there will be no actual changes in the way they
do business. --
Michael Seeley
3 Knowles Avenue
East Wareham, MA 02538-1330
[email protected]
MTC-00024358
From: Shon Frazier
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the proposed settlement. Regardless of the *apparent*
intent of the proposed settlement, I believe it will server to further the
monopolistic grip of Microsoft on the software industry. I am in agreement
with many of the points presented in Mr. Dan Kegel's essay located at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
--Shon Frazier
270 Five Oaks Drive
Covington, GA 30014
[email protected]
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and views expressed herein do not necessarily
reflect the opinions or views of my employer and/or clients. The content
within this document is not endorsed by Spherion, Inc. or C.R. Bard, Inc.
MTC-00024359
From: Fred Malouf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am voting NO on this settlement.
I am writing with regard to the Tunney Act concerning the Microsoft
Settlement, Civil No. 98-1232.
The settlement is unfair because it will not end Microsoft's monopoly on
the market nor its unlawful conduct.
-Fred Malouf
Fred Malouf
1303 Snow Street, Apt. E
Mountain View, CA 94041
MTC-00024360
From: Matthew M. Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Matthew Burke. I am a U.S. citizen residing at 7109 Wayne Dr.,
Annandale, VA 22003. For over 10 years I have been a professional software
engineer, an Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, and a
graduate student in Mathematics and Computer Science. After following the
Microsoft anti-trust case, reading the proposed final judgement (PFJ), and
commentaries on the proceedings, I have come to the conclusion that the PFJ
is not in the public interest for the following reasons:
1. The PFJ contains misleading and overly narrow definitions.
The definition of ``API'' in the PFJ is so narrow that many of
the most important APIs are not covered. The definition of ``Microsoft
Middleware'' is so narrow that the next version of Windows would not
be covered. The PFJ fails to take into account the fact that Microsoft is
phasing out their version of Java with .NET. Therefore, the provision to
allow users to replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's version is
meaningless. The PFJ does not cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows
CE, Pocket PC or the X-Box although all these products are based on
essentially the same technology---the Win32 API ---and all these
products are supported by what the court has determined to be illegal uses
of monopoly power. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline and not
informISVs.
The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs so they can
create compatible middleware. But they are not required to do so until
after the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is
compatible.
The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation. The PFJ, however,
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. This is despite the fact that Microsoft has been illegally using
their Operating System monopoly to force consumers to use their Office
products as well. 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.
2. 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
[[Page 27465]]
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.)
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement
mechanism.
Therefore I conclude that the PFJ allows and encourages significant
anticompetitive practices to continue and is consequently not in the public
interest. The PFJ should not adopted until the above issues are
meaningfully addressed.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. I would be more than willing
to discuss these issues futher and may be contacted at the address in the
first paragraph of this letter, by return email, or by phone
(703-645-9751).
Sincerely,
Matthew Burke
MTC-00024361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:18am
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,
Peggy Williams
2203 Barnett Drive
Cedar Park, TX 78613-4423
MTC-00024362
From: Matt Hucke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to REJECT the proposed Microsoft settlement. The proposal will
have very little effect on Microsoft's proven anti-competive behavior. They
will continue to abuse their power over OEMs to discriminate against
alternative operating systems. They will continue to pursue unfair license
agreements that will make it nearly impossible for OEMs to ship any other
operating system.
Microsoft has, in the past, used its high market share to pressure hardware
manufacturers to not ship any competing operating system. They have done
this by fixing markedly different price levels for those manufacturers that
enter into an exclusive agreement to ship only Windows; while those who
refuse are charged much higher rates, and cannot compete.
The proposal does nothing to stop this, and therefore must be rejected.
Sincerely,
Matt Hucke
7446 N Damen #2S
Chicago IL 60645
[email protected]
MTC-00024363
From: Miriana Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:24am
Subject: I oppose the settlement being considered
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,
Miriana Clark
Portland, OR
MTC-00024364
From: Charlie Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my concerns on the proposed MicroSoft settlement.
Below are a list of concerns.
1. The DOJ 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. The Court of Appeals specifically
rejected Microsoft's petition for rehearing on the bundling issue. Yet the
settlement has chosen to ignore this fact.
2. The DOJ settlement has no provisions to create competition in the OS
market that Microsoft unlawfully monopolized. The DC Circuit ruled that a
remedy must ?unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive conduct? and . . .
?terminate the illegal monopoly,? but the DOJ settle will do nothing to
restore competition with Windows. The DOJ settlement allows firms better
access to information (known as ?APIs?) necessary to make software work
with Windows, which only reinforces the Windows monopoly.
3. The DOJ 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. Typified by Windows XP, which ties
Internet services, digital media software and instant messaging (among
other features) to Windows, Microsoft is demolishing potential competition
in these new markets just as it did in 1995-98 to Netscape. The Court
of Appeals ruled that a remedy must ?ensure that there remain no practices
likely to result in monopolization in the future,? but the DOJ settlement
does not even try to restrict ways in which Microsoft could (and already
has)leverage its Windows monopoly in the future. The settlement also
suffers from a serious problem of ineffectiveness, because even its limited
provisions (API disclosure, icon removal, etc.) rely exclusively on OEMs to
pro-vide a competitive alternative to Windows. PC manufacturers have
recognized Microsoft's power and have long refused to depart from the
Microsoft strategic plan, since it is the source of their revenue.
In today's OEM market, with rapidly declining prices and profit margins,
failures and mergers, and the slowing of PC demand for the first time in
more than a decade due to market saturation, there is no likelihood that
any OEM will use its small freedoms under the settlement to choose to
compete with Microsoft.
In summary, the settlement 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.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Hunt
(Software Architect)
MTC-00024365
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27466]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that Microsoft should either be broken up or forced to reveal their
source codes. It is not good for one company to be so dominant in such an
important field. Competition would be preferable to standardization at all
costs I do believe.
Marcus Edward Ellison
1522 Rosemary Lane Apt. E
South BEnd, IN 46637
MTC-00024366
From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Does Microsoft hurt consumers? Yes it does. I1ve been paying a premium for
my computer hardware and software for years, simply because I choose not to
use a Microsoft-based computer. Should I not have a viable choice in the
computer marketplace? Yes I should. Microsoft has built an empire on
illegal practices, and a small fine is not going to remedy the problem.
Fining Microsoft even a few billion dollars would be analogous to catching
a bank robber who made off with a million dollars in cash, and fining him
$10,000. Sounds like a good business proposition, for the crook that is.
Microsoft has violated the law. Its competitors have suffered as a
consequence. Consumers have suffered. Consumers will continue to suffer as
Microsoft expands its illegal monopoly into other markets. Once successful
companies (WordPerfect, Novell, Lotus, Netscape, etc.) are now burned-out
shells due to Microsoft1s immoral and illegal business activities. Please
do not squander this opportunity to make things right.
Chris Wirick
Aliso Viejo, CA
MTC-00024367
From: Joseph Gledhill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25am
Subject: Against Proposed Settlement
I would like to state that I am strongly opposed to proposed Microsoft
settlement.
Microsoft is harming the industry and consumers by creating proprietary
protocols and using their massive resources to force them on the general
public. Then once they own the protocol or format then everybody is forced
to pay licence fees to them, or are not granted the liscence at all.
Microsoft is also forcing consumers to use their products by bullying OEMs
to distribute their operating systems. The proposed settlement will not
aleviate these abuses and therefore needs to be reconsidered.
Thank you,
Joseph Gledhill
MTC-00024368
From: Chris Gosnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25am
Subject: comment in U.S. v. Microsoft
Please consider my opinions listed below in the judgment of this case. I
believe that Microsoft operated in a non-competitive and predatory manner
that harmed companies directly, and caused others to go out of business
altogether. Because Microsoft manufactures not only the operating system,
but the applications and tools to develop applications for their operating
system, they have an unfair advantage to promote their products before all
others and have done exactly that.
1) I believe that I have been deceived by Microsoft when I bought software
that did not work as advertised, but could not request a refund because of
the End user License Agreement ``EULA'' that must be agreed to
before inspecting the product. (Windows 95 USB support, for example). In
this EULA, Microsoft cannot be held liable for the performance of the
product.
2) Microsoft's operating system has been shown to intentionally damage the
operation of competing application software. (Netscape Navigator and
others)
3) Microsoft's sales practices to OEM's prevented the OEM's from selling
computers with competing operating systems preinstalled. (BeOS and others)
4) Microsoft's dominant position in the market has allowed them to modify
existing standards to make the result incompatible with all but Microsoft
products. (C, Java, Kerberos, MPEG, etc...) Microsoft's development tools
use the incompatible formats deny computer users the choice of applications
to use.
All of the practices Microsoft has used were intended to promote their
products and harm to all others unfairly.
Please rule for the dissolution of Microsoft Corporation into at least 3
separate companies; Operating systems (Windows 2000, XP, etc...),
Applications (Microsoft Office,Internet Explorer, etc...), and Development
tools.
You may notice that I am using a Microsoft application in drafting this e-
mail. This is not by choice.
I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have
of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
Christopher Gosnell
50 South Wade Ave.
Washington, PA 15301
(724)229-6075
[email protected]
MTC-00024369
From: Sharon K Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:24am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
LET'S SETTLE THIS CASE ONCE AND FOR ALL-- IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT.
MTC-00024370
From: J. C. West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear U.S. Attorneys...
I strongly encourage you to require Microsoft to relinquish their position
of only protecting ``for profit'' competitors from predatory
practices. There are no ``for profit'' competitors of Microsoft.
The issue is a sham. The only competition to Microsoft domination of the OS
and applications fields is the ``not-for-profit'' open source
software community. Please take the time to re-read the Halloween Papers.
Linux, Unix, GNU, itself, and all their open source brothers are not only
in need of protection, you are the only protector upon which they can
ultimately rely. We are at the last showdown. Please, simply make Microsoft
drop the ``for-profit-only'' concept.
I have the temerity to write to you... Because my state Attorney General
suggested it to me. Because I am a quiet resident of Norwalk, a blue-collar
city in lower Fairfield County, Connecticut where I publish scholarly
reference books, college texts, and political fables and satires. I am not
political and am a fairly average citizen of this state.
I graduated from both Harvard College (AB, 1970) and Dartmouth College
(MBA, Amos Tuck, 1972) and did a bit of post-graduate work at the USN War
College. At Harvard, my (undergraduate) Constitutional Law training
consisted of Paul Freund's ``Philosophy of the Law'' classes in
Sanders Theatre and Marty Shapiro's course on SCOTUS (he was visiting from
UC Davis). Perhaps you know or will recall them. At Tuck my Business Law
Professor was Justice Johnson of the NH Supreme Court. In short, I am no
attorney, but I do have some insight into what Mr. Justice Holmes thought
of the law, and why, and what he thought it could accomplish. And I have
watched Microsoft abuse this country and its legal system for Mr.
Gates'' entire business career. As for today, my publishing houses are
current recipients of multi-year grants from the Henry Luce Foundation, the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Korea Literature Translation Institute
among several others. My CD-ROM publication of the US DOL DOT can be seen
in every US Social Security office (including ALJ, appeals, and State level
DDS hearing offices), nationwide. I learned to program in the BASIC
language in 1970 (while its author, John Kemeny, was still president of
Dartmouth),
I have taught several electronics technologies in several places and in
several contexts and hold current mainstream certifications in a few
computer technologies and am a member of IEEE, COMPtia, and some other
computer-related organizations. I serve on the advisory board for a local
alternative high school and helped design their new computer technology
career academy program.
I have no need to impress you and, frankly, I don't think I have. But I did
need to catch your attention so I included the above pertinent mini-
credential in hopes of raising my credibility above the background noise.
In summary...and seriously... Dear reader...Please take and/or encourage
your colleagues to consider an even firmer stance against
Microsoft--especially, and most importantly--regarding protection
of the open source ``nonprofit'' competitors.
It is a bit dramatic to call it a crusade but, dammit, it is...and you,
like it or not, are a crusader. The open source community is comprised of
folks who can't afford to quit their day jobs but who have come up with
Apache--over 80% of the web runs on it because it's superior to
Microsoft--and who are the only competition to the richest man in the
world. They're not revolutionaries--they're you and me. Over the years
the
[[Page 27467]]
American people have entrusted me with a command or two and have decorated
me, personally, several times for this and that but I never had it in my
power to accomplish anywhere near what you can. You hold the key to the
world in which my daughters (11 and 12) will live. You hold the power to
shape their quality-of-life. Please wield it wisely on behalf of my
daughters--and on behalf of yours.
Thank you.
CDR Joe West USCGR (ret)
CC:Richard Blumenthal
MTC-00024371
From: Joel Barsotti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this settlement is bad for the public.
Microsoft will continue to build it's monopoly, stifle any independent
innovation, and basically assimilate every computer on the planet at the
cost of consumers rights.
MTC-00024372
From: Keith (038) Bobbye Bing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a home PC user with Windows 98. After reading much of the complaints
against Microsoft, I beg you to let this settlement go forward and dispense
with this case against the company. Certainly, Microsoft has played hard-
ball, but its products are exceptional and has made computer use easy
enough for even me to learn and enjoy. If someone comes up with a better
operating system, MS will not be in such a powerful bargaining position,
but until then, they should be allowed to market their programs to their
best advantage. OEM's are not forced to sign contracts; if they find a
better operating system, they can tell MS to bug-off. To destroy this
company simply because it has excelled at what it does cannot be consti-
tutional. The government and the courts should stay out its way and let the
market take care of it. As for antitrust, what is with letting Time-Warner/
AOL consume everything in sight? Won't we soon be going through the same
thing with them, or are they protected in some way not now evident?
Sincerely,
Bobbye Bing
MTC-00024374
From: Jan Hvilsted
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, I don't agree with the proposed settlement between
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. A major reason for my position in
this matter is that I'm the owner of several Microsoft licenses ranging
from Windows 95 to Windows NT. I have never used any of the Windows
operating systems, but it is and has for many years been impossible to buy
any brand name computer without it being preloaded with a Microsoft
operating system. As you can understand, I have been ``forced''
to pay licenses for Microsoft's products I have never wanted, requested or
even used, just because I wanted to buy a brand name computer.
The first thing I have always done is installing a different operating
system (IBM's OS/2 and lately Serenity System's eComStation), without even
booting the preloaded Microsoft operating system.
Thank for listening and best regards
Jan Hvilsted
[email protected]
MTC-00024376
From: Gregory Gelfond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
It has come to my attention from various sources, including a recent
interview with Judge Robert Bork, that the current Microsoft antitrust
settlement would do the opposite of what it intends. Instead of breaking
Microsoft's monopoly of the personal computer operating systems market, it
would enable the company to expand its monopoly into other arenas.
Specifically, the areas of Internet service, and content.
As it currently stands, web sites created using Microsoft's Frontpage
program are only viewable using Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser.
While by itself, such tight integration between products may seem a boon to
consumers, it is actually quite harmful. What the company has done, is
subtly change the open standards set by an independent body concerning the
protocols, and language in which web sites are created, to a proprietary
``standard'' owned and controlled by Microsoft. This makes other
browsers, and even in some cases other computer platforms unable to read
such sites. In their recent iteration of the Internet Explorer web browser,
Microsoft has also broken support for certain plugins, namely Apple
Computer's Quicktime plugin. This has a similar effect to the one I
described above, and also has the effect of rendering a substantial amount
of web content Microsoft only. This defeats the entire purpose of the world
wide web. Similar examples can be seen with the companies developement of
it's own Java language, which again breaks the open standard, and with it's
.NET initiative.
If the company is allowed to continue in such a fashion, it would do a
great deal of harm not only to the consumer public at home, but also in the
education environment where the free flow of information is a vital
necessity. Also with the recent security flaws in their operating system, a
corporate monopoly would compound the problems by prohibiting better
products from gaining a foothold in the marketplace.
One proposed remedy that I believe would benefit the consumer more is the
following : Microsoft's preload agreements with computer vendors should be
vacated and new ones prohibited, Microsoft's should open it's office suite
data file formats, and Microsoft should submit present and future Microsoft
networking protocols to an independent open standards body.
Thank You For Your Time,
Gregory Gelfond
MTC-00024377
From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I used to support Microsfoft until they came out with the licensing for the
Xp products. The company is clearly out of control. The settlement should
open up the source code for the operating system, loosen the license, and
encourage competitive products like WINE on Linux that will also run
software designed for windows.
MTC-00024378
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25am
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,
James H. Nix
302 Forrest Hill Dr.
SAn Antonio, TX 78209-3054
MTC-00024379
From: Sharon K Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:30am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
IT'S TIME TO SETTLE THIS CASE ONCE AND FOR ALL--IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT.
MTC-00024380
From: Guy Schroff
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 11:25am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement for Public Review To whom it may
concern.
I do not believe the proposed resolution in the Microsoft v. US will
discourage Microsoft from the behavior that has led to the charges of which
they have been convicted.
I offer these two examples that occurred recently.
1) Among other things, at work and as Manager of Information Services, I
develop and maintain web content. In doing so I test the finished pages on
both Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) and Netscape Navigator (Netscape),
both of which are installed on my workstation. Last week I upgraded IE to
the latest version available at that time from the Microsoft Web Site.
Prior to upgrading IE I had set Netscape to be my default
browser--that is, it is used automatically when a browser is needed.
Upon completion of the upgrade, the default configuration on my
[[Page 27468]]
workstation had been changed so IE, their product, was now the default
browser.
The upgrade changed my preferred default configuration of my workstation to
use their product. It made these changes without asking whether on not it
should make the changes nor even alerting me that the changes either would
be or had been made.
2) During installation of their operating system, Windows 98, upon choosing
a custom installation, you have the option of removing the installation
utilities for internet services including MSN, Microsoft's internet web
service. If you choose to remove the option during installation, the
installation will still install the installation utilities on the desktop.
The users selection during the installation process is clear that the
services are not wanted and that the installers should not be installed,
yet Microsoft ignores this selection and tries to again push their
products. I would expect that during this time, when these legal
proceedings are nearing their completion, Microsoft would be on their best
behavior. Yet they continue to demonstrate a disregard for the preferences
of their customers and to use subversive methods to steer users to their
products. As computers and the internet continue to be more central to this
nations economy, it is imperative that the government protects the economy
(and thereby the interests of its citizens) from a business that abuses the
advantages of a monopolistic product. Therefore, in addition to a
significant punitive judgment, Microsoft should be prohibited from any
practice that gives an advantage to any of their ``middleware''
which utilize the advantages of having operating systems that monopolize
the industry. ``Middleware should include browsers, office
productivity software including, but not limited to, word processors,
spreadsheets, etc. as well as, and perhaps especially, any software which
is utilized in the transactions for internet commerce. This prohibition,
which in reality is just compliance with the law, must remain in effect for
as long as Microsoft operating systems maintain their monopoly.
Any punitive judgment must be strong enough to be a true deterrent. It must
be damaging to their business. Contributing their products to schools and
other areas of public interest would not be punitive. Instead of being
punished, they actually will use the settlement to further their domination
and influence in the industry. It would be a marketing coup. Microsoft has
and continues to demonstrate complete disregard for the laws that govern
them. It is imperative that a strong judgment be made to show that such
behavior will not be tolerated. Anything less would send the signal that
they may continue such practices with impunity.
Guy Schroff
A Manager of Information Services for a not-for-profit trade organization
1034 Knight Lane
Herndon, VA 20170
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00024382
From: Vladimir G. Kogut
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 11:31am
Subject: If monopoly in any Industry (in this case IT Industry) is using
its power
If monopoly in any Industry (in this case IT Industry) is using its power
illegally to protect itself against innovations that could threaten its
power, then finally the IT Industry itself is going to be affected. So if
today USA is still keeping its world leading position in that Industry, it
is unlikely that it'll be possible to save this position in a long term
without breaking down such a monopoly.
Thanks,
Vlad Kogut
Application Analyst
Chester Water Authority
5th & Welsh Streets
Chester, PA 19016
Phone: 610-876-8185x295
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00024383
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28am
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,
Wendy Carney
6903 W. Oraibi Drive
Glendale, AZ 85308-5537
MTC-00024384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:33am
Subject: I do not agree witht the pending Microsoft decision the courts are
ready
I do not agree witht the pending Microsoft decision the courts are ready to
pass down!
MTC-00024385
From: John Tebbutt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern,
I write to register my opposition to the Revised Proposed Final Judgement
in the case United States v. Microsoft. In particular, I write in support
of Mr. Dan Kegel's ``Open Letter to the DoJ, Re: Microsoft
Settlement'' (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html), and to confirm
that I am a signatory to Mr. Kegel's letter. In my opinion, Mr. Kegel
states the case against the Proposed Final Judgement both elegantly and
comprehensively, and there is little that I can add in terms of specific
information.
The findings of fact in this case demonstrate that Microsoft has done
everything in its power to stifle competition, not by building superior
products, but through restrictive business practices and by using its sheer
economic might in the industry to buy out or litigate away competition.
I am a computer scientist by profession, and have been since 1984. In my
opinion, the single most important factor in the dramatic growth of the
market for information technology has been the commoditization of personal
computer hardware. Intense competition between PC component suppliers has
driven down the cost of the electronic components required to build a PC
dramatically over the last decade, while at the same time spurring enormous
improvements in the quality and functionality of those components. The
result is that many homes can now afford computer systems of such power
that they would have been unthinkable outside of a corporate budget only a
decade ago. Contrast this with the situation in software, and particularly
operating systems, for these same machines. Microsoft cornered the lion's
share of the PC market at an early stage, through luck more than judgement,
and by placing their emphasis on the the profit to be made by the premature
shipping of products at the expense of product quality control (which is to
say at the expense of the consumer).
Thus, Microsoft has grown as a company by reliance on the innocence of the
consumer and the colossal increases in the capabilities of PC hardware. And
it continues to do so. Microsoft does not innovate, and never has. While
there have been huge advances in computer science over the last decade,
Microsoft's products have grown steadily slower, more
``bloated'', less reliable and less secure. Moreover, as the
facts in this case show, Microsoft acts to stifle innovation where such
innovation might threaten its monopoly.
In the United States we now have an IT infrastructure, a large part of
which is constantly being compromised by viruses, worms, trojans, and other
forms of attack. This represents a huge vulnerability to cyberterrorism,
and is a direct result of Microsoft's casual attitude towards product
quality, and particulary towards security issues. This, in turn, comes as a
result of Microsoft's monopoly in the PC operating system market. There has
never been an incentive for them to improve their product quality because
there has never been anybody with a reasonable shot at competing with them.
The Proposed Final Judgement does little or nothing to curb Microsoft's
monopoly (as Mr. Kegel's letter amply demonstrates), and thus in effect
maintains the threat to homeland security that this monopoly has fostered.
In times when our nation is under threat, this settlement is doubly
unacceptable.
As a citizen and a taxpayer, I am shocked, saddened and furious that the
federal governemnt should take so much time and
[[Page 27469]]
spend so many taxpayer dollars on this case, only to effectively admit that
somehow it was wrong to bring the case in the first place.
Sincerely,
John Tebbutt
10840 Gambrill Park Road
Frederick, MD 21702-1618
[email protected] Linux: in a world without fences, who needs
Gates?
MTC-00024386
From: Mendez, Wilson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
Wilson Mendez, Jr.
The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged,
confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that
any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this
communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think
that you have received this E-mail message in error, please reply to the
sender.
This E-mail message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses and
are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any
computer system into which it is received and opened. However, it is the
responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP for any loss or
damage arising in any way from its use.
MTC-00024387
From: michael lauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:36am
Subject'' Two Supporters for Microsoft Settlement PLEASE! Please print
attached since we live in very rural North Carolina and do NOT have a fax.
Thanks!
The Lauer
MTC-00024387-0001
Michael & Linda Lauer 4866 Moore Street
Sherrills Ford, NC 28673
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The purpose of this letter is to express our strong support of the
settlement reached last November between the Justice Department and
Microsoft. The settlement is long overdue. The case has lasted three years,
thus far. Too much money and energy has already been expelled over this
issue. The Justice Department should enact the settlement at its earliest
ability. In addition, the terms of this settlement are altogether fair.
Microsoft has made many concessions to resolve this thing. Among the most
important of these is Microsoft's agreement to the formation of a technical
review board. The purpose of this board will be to ensure that Microsoft
enacts the terms of the agreement. The board is composed only of members
external to the Microsoft system to assure objectivity.
Microsoft agrees to this to show its dedication to the settlement. I would
hope that the Justice Department would agree with these sentiments and
enact the settlement with haste.
Sincerely,
Michael Lauer
Linda Lauer
MTC-00024387--0002
MTC-00024388
From: Lee C ``Bud'' Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not let Microsoft get away with unfair business practices. I want
to have a choice as to whom I do business. If you let them off that choice
goes away for everyone.
Thank you
Lee C Smith
130 Meadowview Cir
Tyrone, Ga 30290
770-487-6043
MTC-00024389
From: Jim W Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024389-0001 January 24, 2002 com:office:office''
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
From: Jim W Myers
40835 244th Ave
S E Enumclaw, WA 98022
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I strongly recommend that the Court approve the Microsoft antitrust
settlement agreement. The uncertainty of this situation continues to damage
the economic condition of our country far more than any actions taken by
Microsoft. As a business person, I am all too familiar with the dog eat dog
climate in the business world. All Microsoft did was play the game too well
and the other teams got mad and jealous.
The restrictions that will be placed on Microsoft pursuant to the
settlement agreement will allow the competition an extra edge, but they
will still have to learn to play the business game as well as Microsoft.
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who promote
non-Windows software. They have also agreed to make it easier for consumers
to replace features of Windows with non-Microsoft software. Additionally, a
technical review committee will monitor Microsoft's business practices to
ensure no further antitrust violations occur. No settlement can make
Microsoft competitors stronger competition; they have to do it themselves.
This settlement is good for the country but still unfair to Microsoft.
Microsoft has approved it and so should the country! This case has dragged
on for long enough. I am anxious to see the settlement agreement finalized
and the case brought to an end.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Jim W Myers
Thank you,
Jim W. Myers
[email protected]
MTC-00024390
From: Raymond Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:32am
Subject: Stop Microsoft Now!
I have been employed in the tech industry for 20 years. It has become
increasingly alarming to watch a Microsoft become more and more powerful
based on illegal behaviors. Many freedoms that we cherish as Americans will
eventually be threatened if they are allowed to continue to MOCK the LAW.
Please pursue their misdeeds to the full extent of the law.
Raymond Edward Thompson
787 S 1680 E
Pleasant Grove, UT
84062
801--796--9467
MTC-00024391
From: todd ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir or Madam:
I feel that the settlement proposed in the Microsoft case will not be
effective in curbing the anti-competitive practices of the company, and
that the real issues of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have yet to
be addressed. The three chief concerns I have with Microsoft's business
practices are as follows:
1)They have forced competing operating system (OS) makers out of business,
and kept other operating systems to an extremely marginal market share
through the illegal leveraging of their monopoly power in the software
field to influence the decisions of manufacturers of computer hardware.
2)They have kept file formats (especially for the ``Office''
programs closed and proprietary, to the detriment of the consumer and to
those companies that would want to compete with them on that front. 3)Their
application programming interface (API) for Windows remains largely
unpublished, making it more difficult to compete against them. I am a user
of the Be operating system, produced by Be, Inc. This OS could never gain
enough market penetration to become profitable because of Microsoft's
restrictions upon, and threats against computer manufacturers. In one
publicly known incident, the company Hitachi was ready to ship computers
that would boot into either Microsoft Windows or the BeOS. When Microsoft
heard about this, they threatened Hitachi by saying they would no longer
license Windows to them to sell on their computer systems. Faced with this
threat, Hitachi chose to disable the BeOS on those computer systems on
which it had already been installed, and quit installing it on any others.
Because people are far more likely to adopt an OS when it is pre-installed
on their computer, and not very likely at all to go out and purchase an
unheard of OS, the BeOS was dead in the water, so to speak, if it
[[Page 27470]]
couldn't come pre-installed on premanufactured computer systems.
My second grievance I think becomes clearer when we look some other areas
of computer technology. There are numerous choices in the fields of
computer graphics design, viewing, and editing, computer audio design,
recording, playback, and editing, and computer video design, playback, and
editing. These are also all markets where Microsoft has failed to gain the
substantial market share that is has in other computer markets (e.g. OS's
and Office software). I think the most important reason is that open file
formats (e.g jpeg, mpeg, .wav, etc.) became the standard in these areas of
media production, before the closed file formats of Microsoft had a chance
to take hold. In the area of Office suites, however, Microsoft was able to
get an appreciable market share early on, and the world now has, literally,
billions of documents, spreadsheets, etc. in MS Office format.
People will not try out another Office suite, because none of them will
open up these files correctly, because Microsoft has not disseminated the
necessary information about these file formats.
Third is the API. The only people that have full access to the Microsoft
API is Microsoft. How can another company expect to publish competing
software on the Windows platform, if they do not have access to all the
tools necessary for writing software for that platform. Many companies have
to write their own API's for Windows, because they cannot get the needed
information from Microsoft. This is yet another clear abuse of Microsoft's
monopoly.
The current settlement addresses these issues little, if at all. I would
please ask you to reconsider the proverbial slap to the wrists that you are
about to give Microsoft, and come up with a solution that will actually
bring about change, and return fair play and competition to the computing
industry. Any settlement needs to prevent Microsoft from bullying computer
manufacturers, needs to force them to open their file formats, and needs to
force them to publish their API's. Anything less than that, I feel, will be
to little to do any good.
Thank you for taking the time to read this,
Todd Ferguson
William A. Blakley Library
University of Dallas
972-721-5329
MTC-00024392
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:37am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Sirs:
I wanted to add my comments regarding the proposed settlement in the
antitrust case of the US vs. Microsoft.
I want to say that I am horrified at the current proposed settlement!
In my view, the proposed ``solution'' not only lacks any real
remedy for the past illegal actions of Microsoft, or protection for the
host of other corporations that they have already raped, but rather
enshrines Microsoft's monopolistic Empire! In particular, it does nothing
to curb the exclusive relationships which Microsoft can now force on
manufacturers and distributors of computers and other electronic products.
In addition, the proposed settlement has no clear method of enforcement, so
that whatever remedies might eventually be implemented, Microsoft will have
a huge number of loopholes and intimidation tactics to work their way
around them.
Given the government's and the court's current hesitancy to break up
Microsoft into separate, competing corporations, the ONLY suitable
behavioral remedy must involve the opening of all of Microsoft's secret
API's, file formats (e.g., MS Word) and network protocols. While this would
in no way diminish Microsoft's ability to compete on the basis of the
quality and price of their products (the very HEART of our Free Enterprise
economy), it would prevent them from creating an environment where it is
impossible for other companies to get the slightest toe-hold in the market.
Please, do NOT let Microsoft off the hook for their long string of illegal
activities with nothing more than a chuckle and a slap on the back. The
future of the US Free Economy depends on a free and open market, run on the
principle of Law, and not manipulated by tyrannical corporations acting
with the implicit blessing of the US Government!
Thank you for your time!
Charles Tryon
[email protected] [email protected]
``Never laugh at live dragons, Bilbo you fool!''
--Bilbo, after a scorching from Smaug...
MTC-00024393
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:37am
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,
Robert Wagner
2723-A South Walter Reed Drive
Arlington, VA 22206
MTC-00024394
From: Nathaniel Chan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm sorry, but the Subject shouldn't read ``Settlement''. It
should state reality: sell-out, capitulation, or a weak-willed attempt at
enforcing well-intentioned but easily-usurped-by-lobbyist$$ laws. You get
the idea I hope.
It is sad enough that as soon as ``I got a gentleman's C'' Bush
became President, the environmental laws were re-written by Texas Oil. Now,
you are perverting the surprisingly noble work by Slick Willy Clinton at
forcing the modern day equivalent of Standard Oil (close enough I hope) to
actually play competitively. How many companies must fold before your jello
spines stiffen?
Forget future dreams of a political appointment to a tropical island as an
ambassador. Why not take a stand and fight for the people who suffer from
M$'' daily business practices? Not just rival software companies who
either see their organizations bought out or even worse, their products
copied almost verbatim without a single cent in licensing fees. How about
the average consumer who has to spend countless hours keeping up with the
almost daily patches to fix garbage software?
This is what complacency and more importantly, a dominant market position
where you have crushed your ``competition'' by any means
necessary, will result in. A company that no longer gives a damn about
quality or the impact of its shockingly low level of ethics on consumers.
MTC-00024395
From: Bill Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement as I believe that the
settlement does NOT go far enough considering the damage that has occurred,
the damage that is occurring, and the damage the will continue to occur
because of the actions of Microsoft in the area of software products. I
would also be opposed to any settlement that would have Microsoft providing
Microsoft software products to Education as it is a self-serving action in
that if Microsoft gives their software to Education, then the students
would learn Microsoft software products, and as all of us know-- we
tend to lean towards using products that we currently know. Giving
Microsoft software to Education is a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft--not
a valid settlement option.
The two products that have helped form my opinion are:
* Microsoft Word vs. WordPerfect (word processors)--I have both
products at home and feel that WordPerfect is more user friendly, a feeling
that is shared with some others that have used both word processors. But
many people use Word because it ``came with their computer'' and
``did not cost them anything''.
* Another product is the web browsers IE and Netscape. For many years
Netscape was far better, but as Microsoft gave IE with the operating system
users started using it as it ``came with the computer'' and
``did not cost them anything''. IE is now better then
Netscape--I believe because the cost of IE was included in the cost of
the operating system whereas Netscape had to match the price of IE (this
means give it away free). A
[[Page 27471]]
problem is that IE only works on Microsoft's operating system and the Apple
operating system--what about the other operating systems? As a
consumer I feel that I would be better served by splitting the Microsoft
operating systems away from other Microsoft software products (word
processors, web browsers, spread sheets, databases, etc). By this I mean to
say--BREAK UP THE MICROSOFT MONOLOPY and give me the choice of what I
want to buy.
Thanks
Bill Brooks
Consumer and Software Engineer
[email protected]
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024396
From: Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement with Microsoft is not nearly adequate. They are being
allowed to continue with their monopolistic practices. At the VERY least
they should be required to separate their browser from the operating
system. While I don't necessarily agree with a breakup of the company, I do
feel that the current administration has decided to be way too easy. The
separating of operating system from user programs is a minimum they should
be required to do. Please stand up against MS and their anti-competive
behavior.
L. M. Basart
Chicago, IL.
[email protected]
MTC-00024397
From: Bob Currie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I spend 4-6 hours a day on my computer, using it for Sales Support to
sell commercial printing.
I am appalled that our legal system allows one company to monopolize an
industry and squelch competition.
In my business I expect to win sometimes and lose sometimes. A fair &
free market is what makes our society valuable and desirable to work in.
Please do the right thing & hold Microsoft accountable for their
actions, and protect our work environment for the rest of us.
Thank you,
Bob Currie
Color Copy Printing
Sales Representative
1649 Adrian Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Ph: 650-259-0823
MTC-00024398
From: BILLINGSLEY BRENDAN W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed microsoft settlement is bad. It should not be allowed.
Brendan Billingsley
MTC-00024399
From: Jeanette Matte
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settlement is a bad idea!
MTC-00024400
From: Frank Fountain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Case Gentlemen:
I strongly urge the Department of Justice to finally and completely settle
the Microsoft case on the basis of most recent joint agreement between you
and Microsoft.
While it is true that Microsoft is a very aggressive competitor, it is also
true that the general public has greatly benefited from the Windows
(Microsoft) standardization of computer's operating system. It is NOT true
that Microsoft suppresses and dominates all competitors. Adobe, Intuit,
IBM, and others all produce and successfully market products competitive
with those of Microsoft.
The law should encourage the innovation and development superior products.
Not the recourse to legal action when products are not competitive.
Yours truly,
Frank S. Fountain
2 Park La. Delaire
Wilmington DE, 19809-2012
MTC-00024401
From: Kine, Peter J
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 11:47am
Subject: Tunney Act review & MS Settlement
I believe that the settlement that was reached between the DoJ and
Microsoft is a productive way to return value to consumers. Please put an
end to these legal proceedings that are sucking up consumer/taxpayer money.
PLEASE PUT AN END TO THIS CASE.
Microsoft (MS) understands that it can't afford to eliminate its
competition and it continuously works with its competitors to ensure this.
As a result of the legal actions of late, the competition has gained some
advantages--is that fair? Some competitors to MS have resorted to a
legal war rather than focusing on becoming more competitive on a product
and service level. Consumers have many choices when it comes to IT products
and there is nothing stopping them from purchasing those products. It seem
that consumers like the MS product and that is why they buy it. If they
didn't like it, they can go purchase something else.
The competitive landscape is very different now than when the action
started years ago. Lets move on.
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone
else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any
opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and
conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
MTC-00024402
From: Zane Horton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
Zane Horton
MTC-00024403
From: Adam Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Your Honorable Kollar-Kotally,
I wish to register my disappointed with the proposed final judgment between
the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft.
Currently, I'm a CEO/Co-founder for start-up firm in Silicon Valley. Though
my firm does not compete directly with Microsoft, I experienced first hand
the company's anti-competitive practices.
In the mid-1990, I worked for Borland International, a chief competitor to
Microsoft in office software and programming tools products. During that
time, I witnessed the price collapsed in the software market. Products that
once sold for $400 per individual license now cost less than $100. Bundling
became the rage, pushing average selling prices even lower.
Many at Borland believed Microsoft's revenue from operating systems
unfairly subsidized their office software. Microsoft possessed no cost
advantage yet was able to offer their products at dramatically lower
prices. Ultimately, Microsoft won the office software market with this
approach. Companies such as Borland could not economically produce
comparable products (access to DLLs also hampered development). Ultimately,
I watched the demise of our office software business unit.
I witnessed this same situation again while at Claris Software, a
subsidiary of Apple Computer. Microsoft sold products that we directly
competed against as lower price points. Their practices took away
Claris'' market share leadership in the large education sector.
Thirdly, I recalled interviewing for Microsoft in 1997 for the Visual
Studio product line, which are programming tools. During the my interview,
a senior person in the Visual Studio group shared Microsoft's objective for
this product was not profit but rather market share. In short, more
developers using Microsoft programming tools protect their operating system
market share position. A dominate tools position helps with other software
tools as well.
In short, I believe this agreement does not go far enough to restore
competitiveness in large segments of the PC software market. Moreover,
future markets, including not just software but on-line services as well.
As a citizen who's passionate about the internet ability to further
positive societal changes that beget prosperity, I'm deeply concern that a
single company might hamper competitiveness hence innovation and growth in
on-line services. Services offered
[[Page 27472]]
over the Internet will fundamentally change how we live and work. In the
coming decade, massive consumer and business spending will shift from off-
line to on-line. It's inevitable given the law of transaction economics
that given our free-market, capitalistic economic system. So you think
Microsoft a problem now, just you wait. What should be done? Breaking the
company into three. Albeit, I personally dislike pulling apart such a
glorious American success story. Mr. Bill Gate and et al were simply
pursing an end state our economic system encourages, which ironically is
monopoly. However, when a firm reaches this end-state, we marvel and
acknowledge them at their accomplishment, and then do what's right: break
the company apart. Natural breakpoints for the company come from the
current marketplace structure. Operating System, Business/Consumer
Software, On-line Services. This breakup will foster competition in
critical marketplaces, the benefits to which you're no doubt aware. I know
you have a tough choice to make. And you heard many complex, compelling
arguments. But the laws of economics in our system are surprising quite
straightforward.
I hope you find my opinion helpful. If I can be of service to your court,
don't hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Adam Bauer
CEO / Co-founder
eSanti Corporation
[email protected]
MTC-00024404
From: Barbara O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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 to express my concern over the current proposed settlement
with Microsoft. I am prompted by my interest in technology policy in
general and, more specifically, as an educator concerned with the impact of
technology in the lives of our students.
I have been a professor of communications for over 25 years with much of
that time spent focusing on the role of media and technology in society and
its impact on citizens, institutions, and the democratic process. I also
served for eight years, by appointment of the Governor, the California
Legislature, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, as chair of the
California Educational Technology Committee. The committee has an annual
budget of over $16 million and is charged with infusing technology in
California's K-12 schools. I also served as the founding chair of the
Alliance for Public Technology, a national non-profit organization devoted
to fostering full and equitable access to advanced information technologies
and services.
My experience leads me to believe that without significant changes, the
Microsoft settlement simply will not be in the public interest. The
recommendations of the nine dissenting Attorneys General, however, if
implemented, could bring us much closer to true competition. They would
require Microsoft to:
? Produce a basic version of Windows that gives computer makers and
consumers the ability to pick and choose components;
? Share its code for Internet Explorer with competing developers;
? Auction the right to create versions of the Microsoft Office suite of
software for other operating systems; and
? Include Sun Microsystems'' version of Java in Windows
XP--allowing competing software developers to provide expanded
interoperability of products and consumer options.
Furthermore, I agree with the Attorneys General that the proposed
enforcement mechanism lacks any real ``teeth,'' and support the
appointment of a ``master'' to enforce the judgment, as well as a
meaningful penalty system. Right now, the only penalty would be to extend
the monitoring period. Instead, I support the recommendation of the
Attorneys General. If Microsoft is found to be acting in an anti-
competitive manner, it should be forced to make the source code for Windows
available to competitors.
I urge you to consider my views and make the amendments suggested above.
Only then can you preserve the greatest possible innovation and choice in
the technology marketplace for all Americans.
Dr. Barbara O'Connor
Professor of Communications
MTC-00024405
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:45am
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,
Cindy May
PO Box 110
Cortland, IL 60112-0110
MTC-00024406
From: BURNELL Jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:49am
Subject: Proposed microsoft settlement
I am Jeff Burnell, US Citizen. I have bought two Microsoft Operating
Systems for home use. I am also a computer programmer and work with
Microsoft products on a daily basis.
Regarding the proposed settlement between Microsoft Corp. and the US Dept
of Justice and the nine states signing on to the settlement:
I AM AGAINST THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN MICROSOFT CORP AND THE US DEPT
OF JUSTICE AND THE NINE STATES WHICH HAVE AGREED TO THE SETTLEMENT
It is my opinion that the settlement does not discourage Microsoft from
continuing to take advantage of its Operating System monopoly to
artificially raise the prices and stifle competition in the markets it
enters. This harms consumers and the economy in general.
My work experience has shown me that the one of the biggest challenges
organizations face is the management of data. If Microsoft had not stifled
and driven out of business many other companies on its path to power,
consumers and the economy would be much better off than they are today.
I am concerned that if this settlement goes forward, Microsoft will see
this as free reign to continue stifling competition and raising prices.
- Jeff Burnell
Oregon State Police Application Development
503-378-3720 x 4814
[email protected]
MTC-00024407
From: Hibdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
Thank you,
Terry Hibdon
5689 Barcroft Dr
Grandville,
MI 49418
MTC-00024408
From: Craig Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe
that there are a number of problems with the current proposal. These are
described in great detail in an open letter from Dan Kegel and others
including myself. Please carefully consider these arguments in your
judgement.
Thank you.
Craig Campbell
Everett, WA
MTC-00024409
From: Page Laughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:50am
Subject: Dear Sir: My husband and I hope you will read the attached letter.
I feel very strongly about this a
Dear Sir: My husband and I hope you will read the attached letter. I feel
very strongly about this and trust you will give it consideration.
[[Page 27473]]
Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. Henry P. Laughlin
MTC-00024409 0001
3200 Baker Circle Unit [03S
Adamstown, MD 2 1 71 0-9656
January 227 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-00Ol
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the Microsoft
settlement that was reached in November. I support this settlement and urge
you to do so as weft. This settlement is fair and was reached after
extensive negotiations. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad
new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non- Microsoft software
that competes with programs included within Windows. Microsoft has also
agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the 2o largest
computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including price. This
settlement contains many more provisions similar to these, which will
benefit competing companies. This settlement will serve in the best public
interest. Again, I urge you to support this so Microsoft can get back to
the business of creating innovative software. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Page Laughlin
MTC-00024410
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:47am
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,
Carl A. Polk
1548 Max Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911-5419
MTC-00024411
From: Patrick J. LoPresti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the PFJ in the Microsoft case. The PFJ will accomplish nothing.
Please reconsider breaking the company into two or three pieces. That would
be the single best thing the DoJ could do for consumers and the computing
industry as a whole.
Thank you.
Patrick LoPresti
Cambridge, MA
MTC-00024412
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to this settlement. Microsoft clearly has a monopoly on the
operating systems market. Americans always prefer a choice and the way
things are going, they will soon have only one choice, Microsoft. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Jason DeVinney
--
Jason DeVinney
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Johns Hopkins University
301 B Whitehead Hall
MTC-00024413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51 am
Subject: Re: Microsoft antitrust suit
Attached please find my letter relating to this matter which I feel very
strongly about!
MTC-00024413 0001
Isabel N, Blackburn
88 Elm Street
Cohasset, MA 02025
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am in favor of the settlement agreement in the Microsoft antitrust case.
It is clearly in the best interest of consumers that this case be resolved.
In my view, the terms of the settlement agreement are fair. In fact, the
concessions Microsoft has made go well beyond the complaints initially made
against Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to take steps to prevent any
further allegations of predatory business practices. They have agreed not
to retaliate against computer manufacturers who promote software that
competes with Windows. They have also agreed to license Windows to the main
computer makers at a uniform price.
There is no reason to continue litigating the case, especially since
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement agreement will be monitored by a
review committee. In such difficult economic times, the focus should be on
encouraging thriving businesses not trying to weaken them. I also ask you
to consider this: smaller companies and others like to attack Microsoft
because of their huge success and power, in much the same that the United
States is dislike and attacked by many countries, (especially those that
actively promote terrorism)
MTC-60024413--0002
because it is such a successful and powerful nation. Why is success being
punished?
Other companies should expend more of their energies on finding new and
innovative products instead of piggybacking on the success of Microsoft.
I am hopeful the Court approves the settlement agreement in its present
form and this suit comes to a conclusion as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Isabel Blackburn
cc: Representative William Delahunt
MTC-00024413--0003
MTC-00024414
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51am
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,
Joseph Smith
15 Woburn Abbey Dr.
Bedford, NH 03110
MTC-00024415
From: Charles J. Lingo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53am
Subject: Comment on DOJ vs. Microsoft
Charles J. Lingo
9240 Dabney Dr.
Denham Springs, LA 70726-2265
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: Jan. 25, 2002
To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
U. S. District Court.
Washington, DC 202
RE: Comments about the proposed settlement between DOJ and
Microsoft
Your Honor:
It is my opinion, and I hope yours as well, that the playing field in the
computer software industry must be returned to level. The slope came into
existence when Microsoft was allowed to keep the anti competitive licensing
fees agreements for MS-DOS based upon number of CPUs sold rather than upon
the number of installed operating systems. That license agreement placed
the Microsoft license fee upon top of the license fee of any other
operating system
[[Page 27474]]
effectively impeding the sale of competing operating systems by forcing the
payment of a second license fee in order to choose any other system.
I believe that now the only way to effectively level the playing field is
to absolutely prohibit the installation of operating systems and
application software by the computer manufacturer. The sale of the computer
hardware and software including operating systems must be maintained
separate until the sale to the end user. Neither the price of the computer
nor that of the software may be reduced if they are purchased together.
Simply prohibiting the ``exclusive contracts'' that Microsoft has
used in the past will not level the field as the hardware will remain
closed to others when it is shipped with software already installed. The
lack of an ``exclusive contract'' will be meaningless. Hardware
manufacturers may be allowed to offer an operating system with the
hardware, provided that they offer at least three choices and that they
comply fully with the price separation described above.
Microsoft, and other software companies must be prohibited from supplying
software that invades the hard drive and modifies existing software without
first advising the installer of exactly what will be done. Modification of
existing software without warning to and approval from the installing party
MUST be treated as distribution of a virus. I mention this because I have
personally had Microsoft software that I installed modify non-Microsoft
software that was already installed on the computer onto which the
Microsoft software was being installed. Windows 3.1 installation replaced
both the memory manager and the disk cache in the Digital Research 6.0
operating system when it was installed. No warning that this action would
be performed was given. No warning that this was about to be done was
given. No approval was sought. Windows 95 OSR2 installation onto a hard
drive, which already had Novell DOS 7.0 and IBM OS/2 Warp 3 installed and
controlled by the IBM Boot Manager, invaded the Boot Manager and changed
the settings to remove choice and allow only Windows 95 to be booted.
Again, no warning was given nor approval sought. This invasion and
modification without warning is the action of a virus. It should be treated
as such. Any software which deliberately interferes with the operation of
other software should be considered a virus. The obvious exception is anti
virus software which is intended to prevent the virus from functioning. I
realize that the scope of this trial most likely does not give to you the
authority to define a computer virus. I believe that in the penalty
assignment phase however, that you can specifically prohibit the virus like
activity.
Please, in your decision in this case do four things.
1.) Prohibit the preloading or bundling of Microsoft software products with
any hardware products prior to retail sale. The purchaser must perform the
installation himself or pay separately to have the installation performed.
2.) Prohibit any modification of existing software without complete
disclosure and acceptance by the installing party.
3.) Do not allow an exclusion of liability for merchantability, fitness for
a particular purpose, or infringement, with respect to the product. The
manufacturer, or supplier of any product must be held liable for the
performance of the product in the manner in which it is intended to be
used, and must be liable for any infringement upon the rights of others. It
is unconscionable to hold the buyer liable for checking for copyright and
patent infringement by the seller. This is especially true when the seller
is a large corporation and the buyer is an individual person.
4.) Require that Microsoft ``de-integrate'' any
``productivity item'' from the operating system if any other
software supplier offers substantially the same thing as a stand alone
application. (Allow the item to be ``bundled'', that is, shipped
with but not ``integrated'', that is, part of the operating
system. ``Bundling'' is fair competition.
``Integration'' is restraint of trade.
Sincerely yours,
Charles J. Lingo
MTC-00024416
From: Jim Wiedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53am
Subject: Tunney Act Comments
Tunney Act Comments by Jim Wiedman
I am a Computer System Administrator with experience maintaining Operating
Systems from numerous vendors including Microsoft. Over the past seven
years I have grown increasingly frustrated by the severe limitations in
Operating System choice. I have frequently had to pick an Operating System,
not because it was the best for the job, but because it was the only OS
that would work with the required software. Because of Microsofts monopoly,
this situation has grown increasingly worse. For this reason, I felt
compelled to comment when I realized how poorly the agreement between the
United States, nine of the plaintiff states and Microsoft (henceforth, the
Agreement) will protect consumers.
The Agreement between Microsoft and some of the plaintiffs is surprising in
that it is dramatically less comprehensive than the earlier decision in the
District Court and the unanimous decision by the Circuit Court would
warrant. More importantly, this agreement, rather than preventing
Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly, actually protects Microsoft as it
extends its monopoly into new areas.
According to the government's ?Competitive Impact Statement?, page 24,
because Microsoft put up a barrier to competition in the form of blocking
competing Middleware, the remedy must be to prevent Microsoft from blocking
future Middleware. This does not follow. The Agreement is the anti-trust
version of closing the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Since
overcoming its challenges from Netscape and Java, Microsoft is structuring
Windows in such a way as to be immune from future competitive Middleware
products. Nothing in this agreement deprives Microsoft from the benefits
received from their abuse of monopoly, and very little in this agreement
will restore competition to the industry.
There are numerous loopholes in this agreement. Section III.H (page 6)
allow Microsoft to invoke its own Middleware in any instance when the
Middleware ?would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server
maintained by Microsoft ...? Through its .Net strategy, Microsoft is
already moving toward a model where each end user system will do more and
more work with Microsoft servers. This restriction is already well on its
way to obsolescence. Despite government assurances to the contrary, the
plain language of the agreement allows Microsoft to restrict ?portions of
the APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications
Protocols? that deal with security. Section III.J.1. While at first this
restriction seems reasonable, this exception swallows the rule. Recently,
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has announced that every aspect of Microsoft
programming will put security first and foremost. While this emphasis at
Microsoft is long past due, it also gives them ample opportunity to exclude
programs from interacting with Windows.
Requiring Microsoft to ?[a]llow end users ... and OEMs ... to enable or
remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product ...? is inadequate.
Section III.H1., page 5 (emphasis added). This neglects two things: 1)
removing access leaves the bulk of the unused program taking up space on a
user's hard drive, thus ensuring that end users who chose a competing
product may require twice as much disk space (Microsoft's product, plus the
competitor's product) as they would if they stuck with Microsoft's product,
and 2) even after an end user or OEM has chosen to remove access to a
Microsoft product, Microsoft can restore access to that product in seconds,
while end users may be required to take hours downloading a competitor's
product. This requirement is practically meaningless. Further, the
Agreement is vague. Phrases like ?complies with reasonable technical
specifications? invite varied interpretation and abuse. Agreement page 3.
Weak Enforcement Mechanisms
The Agreement includes too many sections that leave enforcement up to
Microsoft itself. Microsoft can exclude anyone from access to APIs that it
deems has no ?reasonable business need for the API??. Language from the
Agreement includes ?established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business,? or ?approved by Microsoft?.
Section III.J.2 page 7.Microsoft has too much control over its own anti-
trust enforcement, something they have proven incapable of doing in the
past. By using MSDN to give access to those who wish to work with APIs,
Microsoft can restrict vendors from sharing products created using
Microsoft APIs. This would require each separate vendor to create
independent tools, and discourage standardization. This reinforces
Microsoft's control over the industry. Further, access to MSDN is expensive
and nothing in the Agreement controls the price of this access. Using MSDN
and a vehicle for API access gives Microsoft an immense amount of control.
The primary weakness is the committee that the Agreement proposes to
monitor the agreement. Section IV.B establishes a
[[Page 27475]]
?Technical Committee? (TC) to oversee compliance with the Agreement. It is
problematic that a group of three technical people will be responsible for
ensuring the enforcement of a complex and vague agreement, but this is not
the most pressing problem with this section.
The Agreement gives Microsoft an incredible amount of influence over the
Technical Committee. First, Microsoft gets to directly chose one-third of
the Committee. Secondly, Microsoft's choice for the committee gets to help
choose another committee member. Thirdly, after the TC has been at work for
thirty months, these two committee members will rely, directly or
indirectly, on Microsoft's approval. If these committee members have acted
in a way that displeases Microsoft, they can be certain of finding
themselves unemployed at the end of their first term. Finally, by
establishing the committee's main office on the Microsoft campus, Microsoft
has an immense direct opportunity to influence the committee. Further,
Section IV.B.5. Allows removal from the committee only on the U.S.
governments initiative, not that of other plaintiffs in the case. Section
IV.B.8 does not explain what vote of the TC would be required to report
violations or settle disputes. Must these be unanimous votes? Can any
member initiate such action? This is too vague and leaves too much open for
abuse.
Agreement excludes the only serious competition to Microsoft Evidence is
mounting that OpenSource software allows for the only viable competition to
Microsoft, yet Section III.J.2 excludes OpenSource projects and government
agencies from access to network protocols and APIs. According to the
definitions section, ?ISV?, Section VI.I, means ?an entity other than
Microsoft that is engaged in the development or marketing of software
products.? (Emphasis added). While this definition should include private
OpenSource developers, the ?V? in ?ISV? suggests ?Vendor?, and other
sections of the Agreement state that Microsoft can require these entities
to be ?businesses?. This certainly was written to exclude OpenSource
projects. Thus, the Agreement allows for the exclusion of a vast number of
private programmers who work on independent projects. These projects
including SAMBA, Apache, Openssh, Linux and a plethora of others are the
primary forces competing with Microsoft. Microsoft competitors such as IBM,
Apple, Hewlett-Packard, RedHat and others have used projects created and
maintained by these independent programmers as foundations for their
software offerings. Independent programmers provide standards that
disparate computer vendors can rely on, which lets these businesses compete
on a fair footing, while consumers benefit from products that work
together. By excluding these programmers from access to the Windows API,
the Agreement hinders the very tool that will allow all computer vendors
(Microsoft included) to compete fairly.
This agreement is not in the public interest and should be reworked to
resolve the deficiencies outlined above.
James W. Wiedman
9180 #L Hitching Post Lane
Laurel, Maryland, 20723
[email protected]
MTC-00024417
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:49am
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 Saultz
7230 Olson Ln
Pasadena, TX 77505-2612
MTC-00024418
From: Sally Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53am
Subject: To the Justice Department: When will this end? Why is a
contribution
To the Justice Department: When will this end? Why is a contribution that
exceeds what the government can donate a bad thing? Think of the children
who will benefit from this company's contribution to education. Please side
with a company that does things so well that their competitors can only
compete thru the judicial system. Thank you.
Sally Campbell
MTC-00024419
From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
Just wanted to comment quick on the Microsoft issue. From my understanding,
no where in the settlement is Microsoft obligated to release any
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft file
formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. This alone makes
the proposed settlement a bad idea. Microsoft seems to be able to get away
with anything they want, and as a software developer myself, I'm tired of
it. Here's a typical Microsoft ploy from an article I read (http://
msn.com.com/2100-11-503840.html?legacy=zdnn). I quoted part of
the article: Question: ``Does Microsoft plan to make more of its
source code available to customers? You already do that with Windows; do
you plan to expand that in any way to the applications?''
[Answer From Mr. Gates:]
We have some very cool tools now where we don't have to ship you the
source. You can debug online, through the Internet. So it means you don't
have to get a bunch of CDs. If you really want it for debugging and
patching things, we can do that through the Internet. That's a real
breakthrough in terms of simple source access. I don't know that anyone has
ever asked for the source code for Word. If they did, we would give it to
them. But it's not a typical request.''
I requested the source code for Word, and after several e-mails with a
representative of Microsoft this was the final answer I received:
``Hello John,
Please except my apology for the delay in our response. I have done quite a
bit of research to find out what our exact position on our Source Code is
and I have come up with quite a bit of information for you.
Due to the article you have listed below, Microsoft actually did open its
Source Code to certain companies that partner with Microsoft. I have found
that Microsoft's position on Source Code is Shared Source NOT Open Source
meaning that we only release the Source Code to Specific companies and not
to the general public.
Here are a few Official Microsoft Documents that I found regarding this
issue that you are more than welcome to read.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/2001/may01/05-03csm.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/BUSINESS/licensing/sharedsource.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/BUSINESS/licensing/sscommitment.asp
I apologize that I am not able to fulfill your specific request but I hope
that I have given you the information explaining why.
Thanks again for your interest in our products,
Calvin
Microsoft.com Products Web Feedback Team
Microsoft Corporation''
My response to that which never was replied to follows:
``Hi,
I just wanted to thank you for taking time to acknowledge my reply and
giving me further information on the issue. I know that like everyone else
you're swamped with work. The only issue I have with this is that when the
president of the largest software company makes a public statement he
should stand behind it. I guess my point is this. If someone at Microsoft
makes a statement that if a person asks for something that they'd be more
than happy to give it to them that's an important statement; whether it's
from a customer service person on the phone, or a technical support person
giving some help. But as often happens with companies sometimes people that
are new, or are not aware of policies offer things that they really
shouldn't be doing. From that perspective it's frustrating to the customer,
but at times can be overlooked. However, when the president of a company
does the same thing I believe that his statement should hold much more
weight. After all, he's running the proverbial ship. If the company won't
stand behind
[[Page 27476]]
what the president states (in this case Mr. Gates) in a public interview,
then I believe that he's misrepresenting his company. If as a small
business owner I tell my client that I will give him software I'm
developing for free, but then when he asks for it I tell him only certain
people may get it he's going to question my ability to come through in the
future. As a small business person I can't afford to do that because I
would lose a client. If Mr. Gates did this when he first started perhaps he
would not have grown his business to what it is today. I believe just
because Microsoft is such a large company that they take advantage of this
and their customers. I believe this leaves a bad feeling amonst many people
in the community. If you can't go by someone's word, well it's hard to go
by anything. In any event, that's just my opinion, a small businessman who
runs a company with his wife whose word to his clients is the only thing
that allows him to keep his clients. I wish larger companies would follow
the same principles.
Thanks again for your time and effort in providing me the information you
did.
Sincerely,
John''
So to sum that up, one one hand Mr. Gates in a public interview states he
will give the source code away if someone asks for it, but when a person
asks for it, that person is told only certain people will get it. Microsoft
seems to always be talking a ``different game'' as opposed to
what they actually do.
Please do
not accept the tentative settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Quinn
MTC-00024420
From: ashley niblock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i do not think that the Microsoft settlement was sufficient punishment for
a company that broke the law. Please find harsher measures to ensure fair
competition going forward as well as the redress of historic wrongdoings.
yours
Ashley Niblock
MTC-00024421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53am
Subject: On the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
January 25, 2002
Honorable Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Your Honor:
I am a software engineer in the Bay Area, and am working on developing
networking client software that runs on Microsoft's Windows platform.
I am of the strong belief that open and accessible standards, especially
for activities that are central to everyday living and commerce, are an
unqualified good. Examples of this are email and web standards like HTML.
And text document standards should be as well; unfortunately, the Word
document format prevails in most of the business world today (prevalent
from employee applicant resumes, to forms, to meeting minutes). In order to
interact with most people, businesses and publications via email, one needs
to run Windows Office software due to these unofficial standards. For quite
a lot of people, Windows platforms are not the platforms they would
willingly choose to run.
The antitrust settlement is flawed in that it allows Microsoft to propagate
its platform on even more users, specifically schools, even though as is
well known, most schools would rather prefer to use a Apple Macintosh
platform (or increasingly, the Linux platform).
I would urge the court to reconsider this settlement. There have been
numerous criticisms of it, both from IT industry analysts as well as
ordinary users. One recommendation for a settlement design I would like to
draw your attention to is at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-
antitrust.html
I repeat the best points below:
* Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of
software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those
other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be
exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the
Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.
We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or mutual
defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all patents at no
charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense means licensing all
patents to a pool which anyone can join--even people who have no
patents of their own. The pool would license all members'' patents to
all members. It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does
no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed to
work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it gives
access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to implement it.
* Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft
software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been
published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the
same hardware.
Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's doing, but
they are a significant obstacle for the development of the free operating
systems that can provide competition for Windows. To remove this obstacle
would be a great help. If a settlement is negotiated with Microsoft,
including this sort of provision in it is not impossible--it would be
a matter of negotiation.
These two provisions would provide more choice for both participants and
consumers in the IT industry. This should be central to the design of an
antitrust settlement, especially since Microsoft has been found guilty, via
the court's Findings of Fact, of obstructing competition. Respectfully
yours,
Prashanth Mundkur
Software Engineer
Jibe Networks, Inc.
3 West 3th Ave., Suite 17
San Mateo, CA 94403.
MTC-00024422
From: Dan DeClerck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:54am
Subject: Problems with the Microsoft settlement
To the powers that be at the Anti-trust division of the Department of
Justice.
We are now in the era of reduced cost wireless communications. Cell phones
are increasing in complexity, features, quality, security and capability,
while reducing in size and cost.
The consumer has benefited the most in this evolution and revolution of the
managed public airwaves.
What drives this huge benefit for the consumer?? Competition, plain and
simple.
Multitudes of companies with new features, concepts and innovation. New
technologies being standardized in forums with open communication, and
usually the best technology wins
Let's take a look at the computing industry. Since Microsoft has gained a
monopoly share of software for computing the cost to the consumer has gone
up (windows was less than $100 at it's inception, and now costs well over
$300). Defects and security issues abound.
Let's take a look at innovation: the basic configuration of a personal
computer has not changed since about 1990. We still have a mouse and
keyboard, and display. Even Cell phones have eclipsed PC's in one area,
voice recognition. Since Netscape was forced to sell itself to AOL to
survive, browser innovation has slowed to a snails'' pace.
Ever since Microsoft tied it's office suite with Windows and dominated the
industry, we haven't had any major breakthroughs in workgroup computing and
collaboration.
It is clear to those of us in the technology industry that innovation has
stagnated during the ``Microsoft Era of Dominance''.
To allow Microsoft to remain intact as one company, will enable it to
extend it's desktop monopoly into future data and voice communications
industries. These industries, through competition, are greatly benefiting
the consumer. In the present slowdown of the economy, it is not prudent to
disallow innovation by allowing one company to hold the keys to the digital
future.
Dan DeClerck
Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff
Motorola
MTC-00024423
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51am
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
[[Page 27477]]
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 Himes
PO Box 324
5 Ella Lane
Etowah, NC 28729-0324
MTC-00024424
From: Kennedy, Beth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:54am
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 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
Regards,
Elizabeth Kennedy
MTC-00024425
From: Mary Beth Lohse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed settlement in
the Microsoft antitrust trial. The current proposed settlement is
inadequate in that it does not fully redress the actions committed by
Microsoft in the past, nor does it inhibit their ability to commit similar
actions in the future.
Microsoft's past transgressions are quite serious, yet the vast majority of
the provisions within the settlement only formalize its current practices.
None of the remaining provisions effectively prohibit Microsoft from
abusing its current monopoly position in the operating system market. The
most unacceptable aspect of the proposed settlement is that it does nothing
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. It contains no provisions for
redress of their previous abuses. It prohibits only the future repetition
of those abuses. The effect of this is to allow Microsoft to benefit from
its illegal acts. In my opinion that is not justice. I understand the
Court's desire to reach a settlement and avoid lengthy litigation. But
hasty approval of this ill-conceived settlement will not serve the American
people.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Lohse
Senior Lecturer
Department of Computer and Information Science
The Ohio State University
2015 Neil Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-1309
[email protected]
CC:Mary Beth Lohse
MTC-00024426
From: Jim Delong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached are the comments of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
James V. DeLong
Senior Fellow- Project on Technology & Innovation
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW--Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 331-1010 TEL (202) 331-0640 FAX
[email protected] www.cei.org/HighTech.shtml
MTC-00024426_0001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
v.
MICROSOFT CORP.
Defendant
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
BY:
Competitive Enterprise Institute
James V. DeLong
Senior Fellow--Project on Technology & Innovation
[[Page 27478]]
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW--Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 331-1010 TEL (202) 331-0640 FAX
[email protected] www.cei.org
Mr. DeLong is a former Assistant Director for Special Projects in the
Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission and a former
Research Director of the Administrative Conference of the United States. He
is a graduate of Harvard Law School, where he helped edit the law review,
and has written both academic and popular articles on antitrust law and
administrative law. For his full biography, see www.cei.org.
RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT The proposed settlement provides
extensive relief for the alleged offenses, more than the court would find
proper were proceedings to continue. It should be accepted. A serious
argument can be made that the settlement goes too far and should be
rejected as a misguided effort at industrial policy imposed by the lawyers
and economists of the ``antitrust industry'' 1 that is
antithetical to the public interest. Supporters of this view can cite the
detail of the settlement and its underlying premise that the drafters know
how competition should be structured in a highly complex and rapidly-
changing industry. By attempting to put relations among the companies into
a straight jacket, the settlement may suppress competition rather than
enhance it.
However, on balance, the damage the litigation is doing to the industry and
to the legal system is serious and the sooner it ends, the better. Also,
Microsoft has accepted this settlement as better than continued
proceedings, and it seems unfair to force it to maintain the battle to
protect the interests of the public rather than itself. The involved
government(s) are supposed to exercise that function. The serious
intellectual and analytic failings afflicting antitrust law and policy are
topics for public debate and for Congress, but should not delay the
termination of this proceeding.
THE DECREE IS SUFFICIENT
The context within which the settlement must be evaluated was set forth by
Charles James in testimony before the Senate last month:
The D.C. Circuit, however, significantly narrowed the case, affirming the
district court's finding of liability only as to the monopoly maintenance
claim, and even there only as to a smaller number of specified
anticompetitive actions. Of the twenty anticompetitive acts the court of
appeals reviewed, it reversed with respect to eight of the acts that the
district court had sustained as elements of the monopoly maintenance claim.
Additionally, the DC Circuit reversed the lower court's finding that
Microsoft's ``course of conduct'' separately violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act. It reversed the district court's rulings on the
attempted monopolization and tying claims, remanding the tying claim for
further proceedings under a much more difficult rule of reason standard.
And, of course, it vacated the district court's final judgment that had set
forth the break-up remedy and interim conduct remedies.
The antitrust laws do not prohibit a firm from having a monopoly, but only
from illegally acquiring or maintaining a monopoly through interference
with the competitive efforts of rivals. There has never been any serious
contention that Microsoft acquired its operating system monopoly through
unlawful means, 1 See Robert Reich, The Antitrust Industry, 68 Geo. L. J.
1053 (1980); James V. DeLong, ``The New Trustbusters,'' Reason
(March 1999) [www.reason.com/9903/fe.jd.the.shtml.] and the existence
of the operating system monopoly itself was not challenged in this case.2
Mr. James could have added that the Court of Appeals opinion also said:
``We have found a causal connection between Microsoft's exclusionary
conduct and its continuing position in the operating systems market only
through inference,'' and quoted the late Phillip Areeda to the effect
that imposition of any remedy going beyond a simple injunction against the
illegal conduct should be based on a clear causal connection, and
emphasized that ``great caution'' is necessary in crafting
intrusive relief.3 The court's cautionary remarks focused on the remedy of
divestiture, which was then still on the table, but they apply to any
radical remedy--and the remedies in the settlement are unprecedented
in their scope and intrusiveness.
Granting full respect to concepts of ``fencing in'' and other
doctrines to the effect that a remedial decree should prevent future
illegal activity, the requests by opponents of the decree go far beyond
what is proper. They seem based on the premise that the government won on
all its counts. Even if this premise were true, even if the government had
proven all of its charges, the proposed settlement would be a more than
adequate remedy.
Nor is the opposition entitled to play ``gotcha,'' assuming that
because the Court of Appeals decided that some of Microsoft's actions
should be held to be illegal-- and it must be remembered that this is
an ex post facto judgment because the law applicable to dominant firm
behavior remains blindingly unclear--the plaintiffs are entitled to
carte blanche on the remedy. The dissenting plaintiffs want the equivalent
of the death penalty for a speeding ticket.
HARM TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM
Another powerful argument for accepting the settlement is that this case is
doing for antitrust law what the O. J. Simpson trial did for the criminal
law--it is making it into an object of public derision, and is greatly
contributing to public cynicism about the law and the legal system in
general. For example:
As has been extensively documented, the case was conceived in spin, so to
speak, as various players in the computer industry spent millions of
dollars 2 Charles James, AAG Antitrust Division, Statement before the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, The Microsoft Settlement:
A Look to the Future (Dec. 12, 2001) [http://www.senate.gov/ judiciary/
te121201f-james.htm] 3 U.S.v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 80,
106-07 (DC Cir. 2001). retaining former government officials to
develop arguments that would create a comfort zone for the head of the
Antitrust Division. 4
The contacts between the trial judge and the press were the subject of
unusually scathing language by the Court of Appeals.
Since the settlement was announced, numerous press releases by interested
parties and by the attorneys general of the non-consenting states have
misrepresented the situation by charging that the government
``won'' and is now surrendering. These traduce Charles James, and
even seem designed to put pressure on the court to decide according to
political factors rather than legal ones.
Were the case to continue, its destructive impact could only worsen because
the nature and validity of the Findings of Fact on which any revised remedy
would have to be based are hopelessly confused. Many of them are what
administrative law classifies as ``legislative facts.'' As the
undersigned wrote before the Court of Appeals decision:
Among the judge's 412 findings of fact, covering 140 pages of text, are
some specific conclusions about who did what when. But they are
overshadowed by complex technical assessments about the results of these
actions, by conclusions about the economics of the high- tech world, and by
predictions about the future ..... Even if the rules on dominant-firm
behavior were clear, which they are not, and even if the assessment of when
a firm is dominant were straightforward, which it is not, the computer and
communications revolutions have so changed the context that the proper
application of the antitrust rules has become a matter of considerable
bafflement.
A reviewing court will have a tough time determining which of the findings
in Microsoft are real, factual findings to which it must defer, which are
conclusions of law disguised as facts, and which are legislative facts(5)
To uphold Judge Jackson's findings, the Court of Appeals had to determine
that Microsoft had failed to challenge them, not that they were correct.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the argument that the Findings of Fact
should be vacated ab initio because of the bias of the trial judge.
Because of these decisions, if the remedies phase of the case were to be
re-opened, this court would face an impossible task. It would be required
to craft a 4 John Heilemann, ``The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing
but the Truth,'' Wired, Nov. 2000, p. 260 [www.wired.com/wired/
archive/8.11/microsoft.html]. 5 James V. DeLong, ``No Fool for
Microsoft,'' Legal Times, Nov. 6, 2000 [available on
www.westlaw.com]. For a detailed analysis of the Findings, see Alan
Reynolds, The Microsoft Antitrust Appeal: Judge Jackson's ``Findings
of Fact'' Revisited, Hudson Institute 2001. remedy based on findings
that do not qualify as real ``facts'' in a situation where all
parties are acting strategically and attempting to retry the original
action in the guise of an inquiry into the proper remedy.
And overhanging the enterprise would be the issue--still undecided by
the Supreme Court and not waived by Microsoft--whether the original
Findings of Fact should have been vacated and the liability issue retried.
To a certainty, if the settlement is reopened, more years of litigation are
in prospect, to the further detriment of the legal system and the economy.
[[Page 27479]]
CONCLUSION
The settlement presents an opportunity to escape from the Big Muddy that
should not be missed.6
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James V. DeLong
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Senior Fellow--Project on Technology & Innovation
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW--Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 331-1010 TEL (202) 331-0640 FAX
[email protected] www.cei.org
6 See Pete Seeger, ``Waist Deep in the Big Muddy'' (1967)
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/songs
/texts/bigmuddy.htm.
MTC-00024426_0006
MTC-00024427
From: Dave Hopper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
By the way, I felt a need to respond, as this site http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunney.html run by a competitor of Microsoft's
is lobbying for poeple to negatively respond about the settlement.
I feel that the proposed settlement is a GOOD IDEA. It is fair and not
overly harmful to a corporation that is desperately needed by this country.
Microsoft is a true innovator and their ability to innovate should not be
hampered. Already we are seeing litigious activity by AOL who aquired
Netscape specificly as a result of Netscape's poor business dealings.
Netscape has a poor product that they gave up on and when their stock price
reflected this, AOL plucked them, taking advantage of their low stock
price. Now, they wish to sue Microsoft, whose innovation and development
coupled with Netscape's poor management and development efforts assisted
AOL in being able to afford Netscape. How can AOL claim damages, when if
Netscape would have had better management and no competition, AOL would not
have been able to buy them.
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
MTC-00024428
From: Tim Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Department of Justice,
I want to start out by acknowledging that I am a shareholder in several
Tech companies. I own stock directly and indirectly ( mutual funds ). I own
both Microsoft and AOL directly.
I am a firm believer in free enterprise and a fair playing field. I am
coming to the conclusion that many of Microsoft's problems seem to be
coming from companies that have not been able to compete in the market
place and feel that litigation is the answer to their prayers. Let me add
that many States seem to fit a subcategory of this group, (Shakedown
artists for companies and poor constituents.) Yesterdays announcement by
AOL is a case in point. I am outraged at this ploy. I have been able to use
both Netscape and Explorer. I choose to use Explorer.
Microsoft has been a godsend to a non tech like me. I am more productive
and able to work my way through most computer related applications. I want
as seamless and easy to use programs as possible. I want Microsoft to be
able to expand their products as much as possible. I also would like for
Microsoft to be able to use the money that they are spending for legal
representation to be used for more productive endeavors.
I would like the Justice Departments overview to consider this. Is
Microsoft the terrible company that some are saying, or are the 9 states,
some companies, and the European Union just using the courts to shakedown
Microsoft. If you can't compete in the marketplace you can always go to
court. I hope that the review process will quickly and fairly settle this
mater.
I find it tragic that I look at the nine states that are holding out for
more flesh from Microsoft as being greedy self serving blood suckers. I
think many look at Microsoft as they looked at tobacco companies.
As an easy mark to get dollars. Shame on them!
Best Regards.
Tim Sullivan
8111 Cameron CT SE
Caledonia, MI 49316
MTC-00024429
From: Kevin Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am a US citizen as well as a long time user of Microsoft's operating
systems and other ``competing'' operating systems so I would like
to comment on the proposed settlement with Microsoft as specified under the
Tunney Act.
I do not believe the proposed settlement will curb Microsoft's illegal
behavior and furthermore it does nothing to lower the barrier to entry
faced by competitors.
The proposed settlement may require Microsoft to publish the documentation
to its APIs but it doesn't specify what an API is well enough to cover
everything that's needed by a competitor. Furthermore, the settlement
requires competitors to pay royalties to even use the API and leaves
copyright and patent issues unclear.
Competitors like Wine are left worrying as they make an alternative to
Microsoft's operating systems.
Above all, there is no enforcement of this settlement. An oversight group
is formed but it has observational powers only which is further diluted by
one of the members being a Microsoft representative. It seems to me that
we're left hoping that Microsoft will police itself which we know that they
are incapable of doing since they claim they've done nothing wrong to this
day. I predict they will continue doing everything they've done until
they're are brought back to court. Even if they are brought back to court,
there is enough ambiguity within the settlement that any competent lawyer
could make the case that Microsoft hasn't broken the settlement, as
mentioned above.
Regards,
Kevin Bailey
MTC-00024430
From: Janis Grinhofs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
just give us education market to Microsoft as a ``punishment''
and you will have what ve have over here in Latvia: the only school with
Macintoshes is a private art school in the end: only guys with rich parents
will be able to find a job in a graphic design--media--publishing
company, where macintosh knowledge is a must
Best regards,
Janis Grinhofs
MTC-00024432
From: Edmund J. Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate
I am in full support of Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate Network. I don't
believe the government should be involved in this lawsuit. Curtailing
Microsoft's efforts to innovate would seriously hurt not only millions of
customers but also the government. I strongly recommend the government find
a way to diplomatically bow out of this needless lawsuit.
Ed Klein, retired from McDonnell Douglas Corp as Director of Electronics
Technology
MTC-00024433
From: Joseph Regina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I am writing regarding the current developments involving actions by AOL
Time Warner to subvert the proposed settlement between DOJ and Microsoft. I
am in favor of the settlement and believe that the government needs to stay
neutral in the battle between AOL and Microsoft and others. Taxpayer have
already suffered enough expenses as a result of previous administration
picking sides. Each litigant needs to pay their own lawyers and pursue
[[Page 27480]]
their own legal objectives without the government playing favorites. All
parties involved have substantial resources to make their case. It is my
opinion that the best that the government can do is to provide an unbiased
court where each party can make their case before an impartial judge. That
has already proven to be a tall order, given the conduct of Judge Jackson.
Best regards and good luck
Joseph Regina
MTC-00024434
From: eda31 Keefe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
6426 N. Campbell Avenue
Chicago, IL 60645
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
You are doing a wonderful job. I and my family are very grateful that you
are our Attorney General. Keep up the good work!
I would like to communicate some of my views regarding the Microsoft
antitrust case. I believe that after three years of litigation that the
issues have been addressed. I think it is best for our nation to settle the
matter and move on.
The settlement agreement your office reached is fair and reasonable, and
has proven extensive enough to be approved by nine of the suing states. I
do not see the need for further federal action, especially while Microsoft
is negotiating with the remaining states to reach an agreement. The
concessions it has agreed to make antitrust precedent and will require
changes in the way that Microsoft licenses, develops, and markets its
products.
Computer makers and software engineers will be allowed to configure Windows
so as to promote non-Microsoft programs that compete with programs already
included within Windows. A technical oversight committee will ensure that
Microsoft complies with the terms of the settlement. Perhaps most
importantly, the competition will be allowed to sue Microsoft directly if
they feel they've been treated unfairly, thus avoiding future federal
action.
I think the necessary changes have been made to allow us to close this
case. The sooner the IT industry returns its focus to innovation, rather
than litigation, the sooner the market and the economy can move forward.
Sincerely,
Edmund A. Keefe
MTC-00024435
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51am
Subject: Comments regarding the Microsoft Antitrust settlement
Your Honor,
I respectfully submit a few thoughts regarding Microsoft and subsequent
proposals for settlement.
In October 1997, I was employed by Netscape as the Webmaster. During my
tenure I watched our share of the browser market plummet, our revenues
chopped in half and several hundred people laid off. The cause was the free
availability of browsers from Micrsoft.
I took advanced courses in manufacturing during my college days, and
learned of the decline of US chip making during the RAM dumping era of the
1980's. The analogy between the behavior of Japanese chip makers and the
subsequent effect upon US manufacturers, and the current issues with
Microsoft are striking. At the beginning of the ``chip war''
there were eleven manufacturers of DRAM in the US, by the time the war was
over, there was one. The government became aware and national security
interests were raised--remedies were enacted, but it took many years
for the modest recovery of US production capability.
The foreign chip makers did only one thing--they offered product at
below cost and knew their deep pockets would crown them the winner in the
long term.
Microsoft did the same thing. Products that had thriving competitive
markets have been effectively terminated by price undercutting and free
distribution that a deep pocket company can afford. This behavior has
neither brought better product nor greater innovation. It has effectively
driven many companies out of business--not because they had poor
products or were not innovating but because Microsoft made similar products
available and used monoploy power and deep pockets to drive competition
away.
To summarize my thoughts:
1. The breakup of Microsoft into products and OS will lead to greater
competition & innovation. This division of the corporation will be a
benefit to the American people and a benefit to the industry.
2. To keep Microsoft as a single entity fosters an opportunity for
inappropriate and anticompetitive behavior.
3. Fiscal penalties need to be done in cash and *not* in-kind products.
The proposals that have been reported in the media for in-kind reparations
are simple self serving and will *not* address the core issues of the anti-
competitive behavior.
I thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Omar Ahmad
San Carlos, CA
MTC-00024436
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:03pm
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 over 14 years of professional experience in the computer
field. In all of that time I have seen many claims of Microsoft being
innovative. Almost all of those situations involved them purchasing said
innovation from a competitor or putting that competitor out of business to
lay claim to the new method or product. In a few cases, they just take
existing technologies and claim they are the best in the field, which a
majority of the public seem to believe since they are the loudest self-
promoters/advertisers.
I have seen them egregiously take existing methods of inter-operation
between computer systems and say they are using that method within their
own systems; yet, the reality is that they took a standard and modified it
such that existing systems would not actually inter-operate with their new
operating systems due to not having certain modifications to the methods
they will not even document.
It would actually be very easy for me to take the emotional line of saying
that the Microsoft corporation is the one company that has actually done
more to harm the computing industry that any other over the past 10 years.
As I stand back and attempt to look at the issues a bit more rationally, I
have to admit that the emotional response really is not that far off. Time
after time, products that were technically better in some way or products
that were easier to use and serving needs very well have been purchased and
suppressed by Microsoft, or a Microsoft offering bundled into the Microsoft
operating system seemingly for free to the public, or had an interface upon
which they relied changed without notice, or explicitly marked, without
technical cause, within a Microsoft product as not allowed to operate.
The entire situation of them being dominant is not due to technical
superiority, but only due to marketing and anti-competitive business
practices.
After reading the settlement, I do not feel that the root causes of their
anti-competitive behavior will be change in any significant way. The
settlement does not address not-for-profit entities. The settlement fails
to make known the methods of communicating with their products available,
even to government entities. Source code is not even necessary, only inter-
operation. The settlement does not address the needs to ensure that they
compete fairly in a technical arena.
As such, I feel the proposed settlement should not be allowed.
Thank you,
Philip Kizer
Philip Kizer, Senior Lead Systems Engineer, Texas A&M University USENIX
Liaison to Texas A&M University [[email protected]] Texas
A&M CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix [[email protected]]
MTC-00024437
From: bjcfrank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I think that ``THE MICROSOFT CASE'' should be settled
immediately!!! Why punish a Company or Corporation for being successful? If
You punish One; why not punish Wal-Mart; the biggest monoply going at this
time!!!
Microsoft has brought technology to the World!!!
[[Page 27481]]
Please settle and get on with Our Economy..
RESPECTFULLY,
Frank Crawley
2909 N. Downing Ave.
Bethany, Oklahoma 73008
MTC-00024438
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:02pm
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,
Kenneth E. Moore
269 Indian Road
Wayne, NJ 07470-4917
MTC-00024439
From: Rose Ricker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This matter has been dragging on more than necessary.
I am 81 years old, and more than timid about working with my computer, but
find that my Microsoft software is more than helpful to me. Leave them
alone to continue to provide their excellent service.
Sincerely yours,
Rose P. Ricker (Mrs. George A. Ricker, Jr.)
26 S. Hodgdon Hill Road
Buckfield, ME 04110
MTC-00024440
From: postmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Remedy
Your Honor,
I am a software engineer and have worked at Sun Microsystems, Inc. for the
past six years. I wish to make clear that my opinions are my own and not
those of Sun Microsystems. Further I am not writing to you based primarily
on my experience at Sun, but rather based on my 27 years in the software
industry, and my extensive experience with Microsoft over the past two
decades.
I could write a book based on first hand experience detailing the behaviors
which I have seen Microsoft engage in during that time. However, I know you
have a large number of opinions to read. So let me just say this. In my
opinion Microsoft is not an honest company. In my experience they are
aggressive, hostile, dishonest, and will break any prior agreement they
have made or any law of the land with little concern for the possibility of
negative consequences. Hence any resolution to Microsoft's continued
illegal use of its monopoly position must be structural. I personally
believe it would be best to break Microsoft into three companies,
segregating its business as follows: operating systems; development
platforms; and applications
Regarding applications, although Microsoft maintains that Internet Explorer
is an integral part of its operating system, it is in fact an application
which has by choice been closely tied to the underlying operating system.
Operating systems consist of components which are by nature integral and
must be supplied by the operating system vendor or someone working closely
with them. No one makes an add on file system to replace Microsoft's, or an
executive, or a scheduler, or an alternate device driver API. That is
because these things can not be done by third parties. Browsers on the
other hand can be and are written by third parties to run on top of
Microsoft's operating systems.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Moran, Ph.D.
901 Nobel Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
MTC-00024442
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:04pm
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,
Matthew Weigle
Williamsport, PA 17701
MTC-00024443
From: shred
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has crippled the computing industry for long enough, and this
settlement amounts to little more than a light slap on the wrist.
Sincerely,
Randy Froc
MTC-00024444
From: Ryan Damm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:08pm
Subject: Comment from a law student on the proposed settlement
I've been watching Microsoft squash other companies'' products since
the early Nineties. While the ``commonality'' of desktop software
we're now surrounded with makes some things simpler, it weakens our overall
technology base in two ways:
1) The strength of the Internet is in platform-neutral interoperability;
but Microsoft has a history of corrupting Internet standards (their
``embrace and extend'' philosophy) which results in the de facto
standards being /Microsoft's/. We weaken ourselves when the growth medium
of our electronic communications systems is hostile to new
genotypes--but that is exactly the sort of environment a monopolist
wants.
2) Like it or not, there are forces in the world hostile to American
interests. A homo- generous software environment makes virus writing and
vulnerability exploitation easier, especially when the environment allows
coders to do so much with so little caution. Even Mr. Gates's recent memo
to his employees telling them to ``focus on security'' can't
overcome the basic weakness of a single strain of operating system and
application suite. If we allow this to persist we're setting ourselves up
for extinction when a /real/ challenge (not just a business challenge) to
our technological survival rears its head. Darwin's theory assumes that
variation in type already exists. We (and Microsoft) won't have time to
``create a new way'' when the crisis comes. ---
I don't think the settlement does enough to restrain this very powerful
(and very self-absorbed) company. --
Ryan Damm
email:[email protected]: 206-391-0054
MTC-00024445
From: Graham Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Ruling
As an empoylee in the tech sector, I strongly disagree with Microsoft's
monopoly position being allowed to continue. Over the years I've seen
Microsoft's predatory practices not only wipe out companies, but reduce the
number of new companies entering the market with innovative products.
Why spend the time building something new when a massive gorilla will jump
on your back as soon as you're showing some signs of success. I'm a
believer in the government staying out of the economy, but this is one case
where we need the intervention of another powerful body to stop this.
Please don't allow Microsoft to continue on its trail of rampage!
Graham
MTC-00024446
From: Christopher White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27482]]
Dear Renata B. Hesse and the United States Department of Justice Antitrust
staff, I believe that the proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft
is woefully inadequate.
Microsoft broke the law and harmed other companies. Its monopoly status in
the consumer OS world, its continued attempts to dominate other markets
(like high-end servers), and its arrogant stance regarding the law and
ethical business practices, needs to be addressed in the firmest manner.
The nine states that refused to sign on to the proposed DOJ/Microsoft
settlement have the right idea. Microsoft needs to be punished for breaking
the law. Microsoft needs to open up its proprietary systems and allow
others to have a chance to build software for its operating system (OS)
instead of bundling everything into one monolithic system (look at Windows
XP--there is an example of even worse bundling!). I favored Judge
Jackson's remedy of breaking up the company, but failing that, Microsoft at
least needs to be severely disciplined, its business practices scrutinized
carefully, and its monopoly status destroyed. Without a severe remedy the
computer industry will still be at the mercy of Microsoft--and other
OSes (like Linux and Mac OS X) will languish for lack of support.
I am a professional in the computer industry. I am a programmer and systems
administrator. I have to use and support Microsoft's OSes, as well as
others, every day in various capacities (desktop and server). I like many
things about Microsoft, and the company makes many good products. But it is
harming its own reputation within the industry, and alienating many of its
potential friends, by its behavior. The problem is that Microsoft just
can't seem to behave like a team player. It has become a monopoly. It now
behaves as such. Just as the DOJ broke up AT&T years ago, so it needs
to break up Microsoft--or at least severely restrict its predatory
business policies.
Please don't waste this opportunity to help the computer industry by
reining in Microsoft before it owns the entire industry. Abandon your
inadequate settlement proposal and put your weight behind the nine states
that did not agree with this settlement.
Sincerely,
Christopher T. White
Santa Rosa CA
MTC-00024447
From: Donamarie Keefe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
6426 N. Campbell Avenue
Chicago, IL 60645
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I agree with my husband that you are doing a wonderful job.
I would like to advise some of my views regarding the Microsoft antitrust
case. I believe that after three years of litigation that the issues have
been addressed. I think it is best for everybody to settle the matter and
move on.
The settlement agreement your office reached is fair and reasonable, and
has proven extensive enough to be approved by nine of the suing states. I
do not see the need for further federal action, especially while Microsoft
is negotiating with the remaining states to reach an agreement. The
concessions it has agreed to make antitrust precedent and will require
changes in the way that Microsoft licenses, develops, and markets its
products.
Computer makers and software engineers will be allowed to configure Windows
so as to promote non-Microsoft programs that compete with programs already
included within Windows. A technical oversight committee will ensure that
Microsoft complies with the terms of the settlement. Perhaps most
importantly, the competition will be allowed to sue Microsoft directly if
they feel they've been treated unfairly, thus avoiding future federal
action.
I think the necessary changes have been made to allow us to close this
case. The sooner the IT industry returns its focus to innovation, rather
than litigation, the sooner the market and the economy can move forward.
Sincerely,
Donamarie Keefe
MTC-00024448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
We think it would be best for consumers, the economy and for business if
the Microsoft settlement happens quickly. Lawsuits should not be allowed to
drag on for years.
Sincerely,
Peter and Nancy Nottonson
171 Marlborough Street
Boston, MA 02116