[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 ï¿½7E



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? ï¿½IBM 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)ï¿½
    [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
